Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00104)

Hi Daniel and all of you,

Thanks so very much for answering Daniel.
Your answer is interesting. I think I understand you.

All the below was written seeking to make Theosophy and theosophical groups
do better PR on the words "races" and "racism".


1.
Daniel Caldwell wrote in the below:
" In fact, I had previously taken more than an hour to track down the
> facts so I could answer the original question you had posed!!"
My Sufilight answer and questions:
*"What !!! More than ONE hour 'wasted' - is that true??
But Daniel why should that make you stop answering that question or stop
searching further information ?
Or what should prevent you from even posting this issue on ALL the Mahatma
Letters, - i.e. on when they were made public the first time ?
A think a Theosophist should always be alert on issues of importance, and
make priorities on what has importance. One should answer when one wants to
do that.
A number of the Mahatma Letters are at
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-con.htm#s1.
At the website - about none of them are telling anyone when they were made
public the first time !
I.e. distributed in a book or put on the Internet etc.
Even at your own website this issue isn't quite clear:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/MLtoLauraHolloway.htm .
Are anyone aware of if there is a particular reason to why the Mahatma
Letters (as originals) are not scanned in and put online on PDF-file or
another file-format ?*


2.
Daniel Caldwell wrote in the below:
"But why should I have taken that time and effort to try to answer
> your question when you later admit that "maybe I [you] didn't really
> want an answer to that question"???!!!"
My Sufilight answer:
*I think the above answer is enough. Else anyone are welcome to enlighten me
and get a further answer.*

3.
Daniel Caldwell wrote in the below:
"What could I possibly write in response to those kind of comments?"
My Sufilight answer and question:
*A whole lot,... I think. But Daniel - my email use some of the 7 keys.
This is the quote Daniel questions in the above - look below:
"The ML23b is fake in the sense, that no true Master would TODAY
> write such a letter and make it publicly known ! Past papers and pas
> books are nearly always only recommended to a PAST audience by the
> true Master. --- I suggest, this: Let us be more concerned with the
> present hour of turmoil, pump and circumstance, than these past
> events."
My point was the following. We live in an informationssociety today year
2002. I hold it to be true, that we can discuss the past, but we have to
relate our discussion to the present (and if possible the future). I think,
that the mentioned Mahatma Letter has a content, which will make the Mahatma
look like a racist, when one read it dead-letter TODAY. And because of that
the letter creates misunderstandings TODAY among thesophical newcomers in
our open information-society.
I said the above because I felt, that there was a lack in the understanding
of the importance the word "RACISM" has TODAY, - and why THIS Mahatma Letter
and other relevant Theosophical scriptures has to be related to that issue -
called Racism - in a proper manner - showing good PR for the Theosophical
cause TODAY year 2002, and not tomorrow.
What do you think now Caldwell - was that better ?*

4.
I wrote in a previous email the below in full text:
*Yes and no. The situation differs because Blavatsky was writing a book, and
because she was the person/soul she was, and because A. P. Sinnnett was the
person/soul he was. And let us remember, that some still hold it to be true
that some of the Mahatma Letters was transferred via some of the CHELAS. And
Chelas make mistakes.*

In the below Daniel puts a question to only a part of the above text -
omitting the last line:
"What, pray tell, does that mean? I could NOT answer that point for
> the primary reason I was not at all sure exactly what your point
> was."
My Sufilight answer and question:
*Allright. Yes. Blavatsky and her book The Secret Doctrine should be
questioned on the issue of racism when read dead-letter. And Theosophical
groups ought to properly deal with the book on the issue RACISM and "races".
"Time" is running. Blavatsky said that her book would last for about the
next 100 years or so. We are now at least 27 years past that date. So when
can we declare the scripture to be too old or at least somewhat old? If you
answer: Never. I would say you were wrong.
What I meant in the above was. A.P. Sinnett or another person could have
changed some of the Mahatma Letters using an almost unknown technique of
writing before it reached public knowledge - even with the knowledge and
approval of A. P. Sinnett, while he was keeping silent about it. And because
the manner in which the Mahatma Letters were written in - seems to be given
importance, one has to ask the question if any Dugpas with magic
capeabilities have changed any of them since their departure from the
Mahatma in question, and before they were examined for their style of
writing etc...
Because of that - a dead-letter knowledge of when they were made public the
first time is of importance to the more down-to-earth reader!
Blavatsky wrote the book/scripture herself - so any tampering has to be
ruled out because she lived some years after its publication. That is a
difference!!!
Did that help you ?*

Katinka Hasselink has a comment racism and Blavatsky:
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/faq/explan.htm
Brian on Theos-Talk has comments on Mahatma Letter 23b here:
http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/austr.html
I think that both links somewhat lack understanding the importance of the 7
keys.
Any comments on these links ?



Eight questions.
I will await your answers.

To all of you, I say - feel free to do your best...


from
Sufilight with













----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@blavatskyarchives.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:05 AM
Subject: Theos-World "Answering" Morten Nymann Olesen's questions and points


> Morten,
>
> Earlier this week I was attempting to answer some of your questions
> and points as given in your posting at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8405
>
> But after I read some of the following comments by you, I decided not
> to spend the time and effort it would take to answer all of your
> questions and points.
>
> For example, in one of your comments you wrote:
>
> "But Daniel maybe I didn't really want an answer to that question.
> Maybe I wanted the readers to THINK. To THINK is here to develop
> your inner organ - i.e. to merge with your inner being. The person
> who first made the Mahatma Letter - ML23b public was maybe a racist
> or just stupid...because of the misunderstandings it created and
> creates."
>
> In fact, I had previously taken more than an hour to track down the
> facts so I could answer the original question you had posed!!
>
> But why should I have taken that time and effort to try to answer
> your question when you later admit that "maybe I [you] didn't really
> want an answer to that question"???!!!
>
> Or take another comment of yours:
>
> "The ML23b is fake in the sense, that no true Master would TODAY
> write such a letter and make it publicly known ! Past papers and pas
> books are nearly always only recommended to a PAST audience by the
> true Master. --- I suggest, this: Let us be more concerned with the
> present hour of turmoil, pump and circumstance, than these past
> events."
>
> What could I possibly write in response to those kind of comments?
>
> And since you want us to "be more concerned with the prsent hour of
> turmoil", then why waste time responding to your comments
> about "these past events?
>
> Or one more example:
>
> I had written:
>
> "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?"
>
> and your "Sufilight answer" was in part:
>
> "Yes and no. The situation differs because Blavatsky was writing a
> book, and because she was the person/soul she was, and because A. P.
> Sinnnett was the person/soul he was. . . . "
>
> What, pray tell, does that mean? I could NOT answer that point for
> the primary reason I was not at all sure exactly what your point
> was.
>
> I don't mean that all of your comments were similar to the above, but
> I felt and still feel that most of what you had written did not
> require further comments from me.
>
> Furthermore, you write that I had never responded to the following
> posting by you:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8078
>
> I will try to answer your 2 or 3 points in this posting in the next
> several days.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>