Comparing BAG's views with Morya's comments
Jan 31, 2003 08:39 AM
by Daniel H. Caldwell " <email@example.com>
Some readers of this forum may want to carefully read and study the
following message from Master Morya in light of what BAG has written
in the last few months on Bhakti, "God", etc. I think
BAG's "views" when compared and contrasted with Morya's comments may
give students some insights not previously comprehended.
I quote below most of HPB's letter which contains Morya's comments to
THE MAHATMA LETTERS
Letter No. 134
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)." . . . .
Daniel H. Caldwell
Visit Blavatsky Archives at:
"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at
their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and
hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision."
H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application