Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00197)

Thanks for posting this Daniel. I have both books with their letters 
back and forth. And this is vintage Blavatsky. I find the letters 
between Sinnett and HPB to be a veritable treasure trove of 
information. Why? Because there is much to be read not only in the 
lines but between the lines as well. These are letters worth studying 
in-depth I believe. I think if one can find all the similarities in 
what Blavatsky is saying as Helena and what she says as HPB I think 
you might find a bridge to link her with many, but certainly NOT all 
the letters of the Mahatmas. What's more if she did write ALL the 
letters then that would make her a "Mahat" now wouldn't it?

Or one of the greatest letter writers in history as Heloise (of 
Heloise and Abelard fame)has been called by many in academia now 
studying, nay pouring over the influence which Heloise had on 
Abelard's thinking and not the other way around.

Netemara

The mysteries are answers right in front of our noses. 

*******************


--- In theos-talk@y..., "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...> wrote:
> Mahatma Letter No. 134
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-134.htm
> 
> [Letter from H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett. This letter includes 
a 
> message from Master Morya.]
> 
> Dehra Dun. Friday. 4th. 
> 
> Arrived only yesterday, last night late from Saharampur. The house 
> very good but cold, damp and dreary. Received a whole heap of 
letters 
> and answer yours first. 
> 
> Saw at last M. and showed him your last or rather Benemadhab's on 
> which you have scratched a query. It is the latter Morya answers. I 
> wrote this under his dictation and now copy it. 
> 
> I wrote to Sinnett my opinion on the Allahabad theosophists. (Not 
> through me though?) Adetyarom B. wrote a foolish letter to Damodar 
> and Benemadhab writes a foolish request to Mr. Sinnett. Because 
K.H. 
> chose to correspond with two men, who proved of the utmost 
importance 
> and use to the Society they all -- whether wise or stupid, clever 
or 
> dull, possibly useful or utterly useless -- lay their claims to 
> correspond with us directly -- too. Tell him (you) that this must 
be 
> stopped. For ages we never corresponded with anyone, nor do we mean 
> to. What has Benemadhab or any other of the many claimants done to 
> have a right to such a claim? Nothing whatever. They join the 
> Society, and though remaining as stubborn as ever in their old 
> beliefs and superstitions, and having never given up caste or one 
> single of their customs, they, in their selfish exclusiveness, 
expect 
> to see and converse with us and have our help in all and 
everything. 
> I will be pleased if Mr. Sinnett says, to everyone of those who may 
> address him with similar pretensions the following: "The 'Brothers' 
> desire me to inform one and all of you, natives, that unless a man 
is 
> prepared to become a thorough theosophist i.e. to do as D. 
Mavalankar 
> did, -- give up entirely caste, his old superstitions and show 
> himself a true reformer (especially in the case of child marriage) 
he 
> will remain simply a member of the Society with no hope whatever of 
> ever hearing from us. The Society, acting in this directly in 
> accordance with our orders, forces no one to become a theosophist 
of 
> the IId. Section. It is left with himself and at his choice. It is 
> useless for a member to argue 'I am one of a pure life, I am a 
> teetotaller and an abstainer from meat and vice. All my aspirations 
> are for good etc.' and he, at the same time, building by his acts 
and 
> deeds an impassable barrier on the road between himself and us. 
What 
> have we, the disciples of the true Arhats, of esoteric Buddhism and 
> of Sang-gyas to do with the Shasters and Orthodox Brahmanism? There 
> are 100 of thousands of Fakirs, Sannyasis and Saddhus leading the 
> most pure lives, and yet being as they are, on the path of error, 
> never having had an opportunity to meet, see or even hear of us. 
> Their forefathers have driven away the followers of the only true 
> philosophy upon earth away from India and now, it is not for the 
> latter to come to them but to them to come to us if they want us. 
> Which of them is ready to become a Buddhist, a Nastika as they call 
> us? None. Those who have believed and followed us have had their 
> reward. Mr. Sinnett and Hume are exceptions. Their beliefs are no 
> barrier to us for they have none. They may have had influences 
around 
> them, bad magnetic emanations the result of drink, Society and 
> promiscuous physical associations (resulting even from shaking 
hands 
> with impure men) but all this is physical and material impediments 
> which with a little effort we could counteract and even clear away 
> without much detriment to ourselves. Not so with the magnetism and 
> invisible results proceeding from erroneous and sincere beliefs. 
> Faith in the Gods and God, and other superstitions attracts 
millions 
> of foreign influences, living entities and powerful agents around 
> them, with which we would have to use more than ordinary exercise 
of 
> power to drive them away. We do not choose to do so. We do not find 
> it either necessary or profitable to lose our time waging war to 
the 
> unprogressed Planetaries who delight in personating gods and 
> sometimes well known characters who have lived on earth. There are 
> Dhyan-Chohans and "Chohans of Darkness," not what they term devils 
> but imperfect "Intelligences" who have never been born on this or 
any 
> other earth or sphere no more than the "Dhyan Chohans" have and who 
> will never belong to the "builders of the Universe," the pure 
> Planetary Intelligences, who preside at every Manvantara while the 
> Dark Chohans preside at the Pralayas. Explain this to Mr. Sinnett 
(I 
> CAN'T) -- tell him to read over what I said to them in the few 
things 
> I have explained to Mr. Hume; and let him remember that as all in 
> this universe is contrast (I cannot translate it better) so the 
light 
> of the Dhyan Chohans and their pure intelligence is contrasted by 
> the "Ma-Mo Chohans" -- and their destructive intelligence. These 
are 
> the gods the Hindus and Christians and Mahomed and all others of 
> bigoted religions and sects worship; and so long as their influence 
> is upon their devotees we would no more think of associating with 
or 
> counteracting them in their work than we do the Red-Caps on earth 
> whose evil results we try to palliate but whose work we have no 
right 
> to meddle with so long as they do not cross our path. (You will not 
> understand this, I suppose. But think well over it and you will. M. 
> means here, that they have no right or even power to go against the 
> natural or that work which is prescribed to each class of beings or 
> existing things by the law of nature. The Brothers, for instance 
> could prolong life but they could not destroy death, not even for 
> themselves. They can to a degree palliate evil and relieve 
suffering; 
> they could not destroy evil. No more can the Dhyan Chohans impede 
the 
> work of the Mamo Chohans, for their Law is darkness, ignorance, 
> destruction etc., as that of the former is Light, knowledge and 
> creation. The Dhyan Chohans answer to Buddh, Divine Wisdom and Life 
> in blissful knowledge, and the Ma-mos are the personification in 
> nature of Shiva, Jehovah and other invented monsters with Ignorance 
> at their tail). 
> 
> The last phrase of M.'s I translate is thus. Tell him (you) then 
that 
> for the sake of those who desire to learn and have information, I 
am 
> ready to answer the 2 or 3 enquiries of Beninadhab from the 
Shasters, 
> but I will enter in no correspondence with him or any other. Let 
him 
> put their questions clearly and distinctly to (you) Mr. Sinnett, 
and 
> then I will answer through him (you)." 
> 
> ------- 
> 
> I send you my uncle's letter just received by me. He says (as my 
> translation of his Russian letter shows) that he wrote to you the 
> same. Whether you received it or not, I know not, but I send you 
> this. If it is identical with yours then send me back mine. I 
suppose 
> that by this time it is pretty well proved that I am I -- and not 
> someone else; that my uncle being now adjunct (or asst.) Minister 
of 
> the Interior, is a personage who by signing his name in full can 
> certainly be trusted, unless, indeed, the C. and M. and your friend 
> Primrose invent a new version and say that we have forged the 
> documents. But my uncle says in his official letter to me that the 
> Prince Dondovhof is going to send me an official document to prove 
my 
> identity, and so we will wait. His other private letter I cannot 
> translate as its phraseology is far from complimentary for Mr. 
> Primrose in particular, and the Anglo-Indians who insult and vilify 
> me in general. I will ask the Prince to write to Lord Ripon, or 
> Gladstone direct. 
> 
> Your's in the love of Jesus 
> 
> H. P. Blavatsky. 
> 
> Why the deuce does the "Boss" want me now to go to Allahabad? I 
can't 
> be spending money there and back for I have to go by Jeypur and 
> Baroda and he knows it. What all this means is more than I can 
tell. 
> He made me go to Lahore and now it's Allahabad!!