Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00019)

Dear Morten Nymann Olesen,

I am responding to your email posted at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8375

You write:

"Someone - NOT a Master changed it or did rewrite the letter [ML 
23b] . . . ."

This view is not really that unique. I have a whole file of letters 
and emails from various Theosophical students over the years who have 
proposed similar explanations about other Mahatma letters. 

But this is the first time I have heard anyone question this 
particular letter 
( http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-23b.htm ).

For example, some readers and students have suggested that some of 
the teachings about life after death as found in Koot Hoomi's letters 
could NOT have originated with the real Master. They suggest that 
HPB or some chela or even some dugpa must have added their two cents 
worth and therefore distorted the REAL teaching of the Master about 
various aspects of life after death.

Or take Letter # 10 
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm 
A number of students of the MLs believe that much of what is 
in this letter does not orginate with the real Master KH. HPB or 
somebody else must have distorted the message in the letter.

The same for ML #134 where we find a message from M:
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-134.htm

Or several Theosophical students who don't believe in reincarnation 
therefore have questioned the teaching of reincarnation as found in 
the MLs.

I could cite other examples.

In each and every case including yours too --- these students are 
apparently assuming they know what the real teaching is all about or 
that they have a better conception of what a real Master would write 
or not write. Therefore they conclude that because this or that 
Mahatma Letter does not live up to their "standard" therefore there 
must be something wrong with the letter.

Of course this is possible but when reviewing ALL of the various 
objections one might conclude that there is hardly a theosophical 
teaching found in the Mahatma Letters that some student does not 
dispute.

Therefore, should we conclude that all the letters are "faked" 
or "distorted"?

Morten, you view ML 23-b as somehow "faked" but do you accept ML #10 
or #134? You may think these two letters are genuine but there are 
students who disagree. Who is right?

Concerning ML23-b, you write that it contains " 'careless' - remarks 
on races and sub-races." But are the remarks actually careless? 

I don't find the remarks to be "careless" when you view them in the 
context of all of the theosophical teachings. 

Again, you write:

"A true MASTER would have (to a certain degree a least) forseen 
these - racist - tendencies, issues and historical events AND 
secured - either - that the letter wasn't made public - so no 
misunderstandings would have ar(a)isen . . . . - or the Master would 
have known that the letter would be made into a forgery - and then 
rested in peace !"

But the point Morten is: is your assumption really true? You are 
entitled to entertain this opinion but is your assumption the only 
valid one? 

Master KH never claimed to be all-knowing or infallible. He says 
this more than once in the MLs. Yet you are assuming he should have 
looked into the future, saw..., etc. etc.

You also write:

"The reason why H.P. Blavatsky didn't interfer on this letter being a 
fake was, that karma, time and circumstances didn't allow this to 
happen."

Okay, I guess this is one possibility if you make and accept 3 or 4 
related assumptions.

But HPB's writings on races seem to contain very SIMILAR ideas to 
what KH writes in ML-23b. Following your previous reasoning, could 
not one speculate that HPB's writings have been tampered with? Or 
somehow faked?

Morten, you also mention Mr. Leadbeater:

". . . C.W. Leadebeaters - clearly fake 6th subrace version in his 
book - 'Man Whence how and Whither' "

I am somewhat surprised by your use of the words: CLEARLY FAKE.

What happened to your admonitions to use the "the '7 keys'" and 
use "a spiritual sense of mind"? If Nicholas Weeks wrote something 
like that about Alice Bailey, I can imagine you would write a few 
emails protesting his "literalness". But you seem to have no problem 
labelling something Leadbeater wrote as CLEARLY FAKE. Strange.....

Then back to your question:

"Do you know what the exact year was when this letter first was made 
public - for real ?" 

But if this question was answered, could this in anyway change your 
mind that Mahatma Letter #23b was faked? Would knowing the exact 
year in anyway confirm or falsify your assumption about this letter?

Daniel