Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00035)

Sept 6th 2003

Dear Katinka:

Please don't appear to quote me if you do not have definite reference as
to what I said, exactly. 

You write (in part):



" Yet those who see in her [Besant] at least a pure soul (as testified
by her very many accomplishments in theosophy and politics), could see
this as collaborating evidence that the letter sent to Besant in 1900
was indeed from KH as it is claimed. 

Letter writing research as well as internal evidence seems to suggest it
was genuine. When the research by Barborka (if I'm not mistaken) was
published in a theosophical magazine (don't remember which), all the
response was positive, except Dallas Tenbroeck's. He was 
sceptical, if I remember correctly. 

Personally, based on the content of the letter, I think it was genuine."



I do not recall making any comment on this matter, except once, when I
did say I doubted the letter was genuine as I read it. It sounds as
though a psychic delivered it. To me, it has little or none of the
straight sure delivery of the MAHATMA LETTERS (Barker Edn.) if they are
to be taken as models of the Mahatma's writing and thinking in the
English language. To me thee is a very clear distinction.

Second. As regards any discussion from me on the subject of the ES, or
of "esoteric documents;" I repeat what I said from the beginning. HPB
desired these to be kept confidential. I respect this. I do not and
will not discuss these.

Best wishes,

Dallas

======================



===================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Katinka Hesselink [mailto:mail@katinkahesselink.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 4:35 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Re: re Masters/Theosophy after HPB's passing

Hi Mauri,

I know about this statement. Yet it was said by HPB herself that:

>> Those who will not have profited by the opportunity (given to the 
world in every last quarter of a century), those who will not have 
reached a certain point of psychic and spiritual development, or that 
point from which begins the cycle of adeptship, by that day--those 
will advance no further than the knowledge already acquired. No 
Master of Wisdom from the East will himself appear or send any one to 
Europe or America after that period, and the sluggards will have to 
renounce every chance of advancement in their present incarnation--
until the year 1975. Such is the LAW, for we are in Kali Yuga--the 
Black Age--and the restrictions in this cycle, the first 5,000 years 
of which will expire in 1897, are great and almost insuperable.
As to the relations of the Masters to this Section, it may be further 
said, paradoxically, that with Them everything is possible and 
everything impossible. They may or may not communicate personally on 
the outer plane with a member, and those who are continually wishing 
to receive "orders" or communications directly from Them on this 
plane, either phenomenally or otherwise, will in all probability be 
disappointed. The Masters have no desire to prove Their power or 
give "tests" to anyone whatever. And the fact that a member has 
concluded that a crisis of some kind or other is at hand, when, 
according to his wise opinion, the Master or Masters ought to speak 
and interfere personally, is no sound reason for such an outward 
interference.>> (CW XII, p. 492, Esoteric Instructions)

I will lift out the part that is especially relevant to relationships 
with masters outside the given time period:

>> As to the relations of the Masters to this Section, it may be 
further said, paradoxically, that with Them everything is possible 
and everything impossible. They may or may not communicate personally 
on the outer plane with a member >>

Now, those who think Besant became a black magician will obviously 
think that she did not deserve. Yet those who see in her at least a 
pure soul (as testified by her very many accomplishments in theosophy 
and politics), could see this as colloborating evidence that the 
letter sent to Besant in 1900 was indeed from KH as it is claimed. 

Letter writing research as well as internal evidence seems to suggest 
it was genuine. When the research by Barborka (if I'm not mistaken) 
was published in a theosophical magazine (don't remember which), all 
the response was positive, except Dallas Tenbroeck's. He was 
sceptical, if I remember correctly. 

Personally, based on the content of the letter, I think it was 
genuine. 

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/lastkh.htm

Katinka Hesselink
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauri <mhart@i...> wrote:
> re Masters/Theosophy after HPB's passing
> 
> Some excerpts from "H.P. Blavatsky As I Knew
> Her" by A.L. Cleather:
> 
> 
> <<Some twenty years ago, or more, I came to the
> conclusion that H. P. B.'s passing sounded also the
> death-knell of the Theosophical Society, as such. But
> from a personal and interior point of view, it was even
> more tragic. For I am absolutely convinced that, WHEN
> H. P. B. LEFT US, THERE WAS NO LONGER ANY
> POSSIBILITY OF DIRECT COMMUNICATION
> WITH THE GREAT LODGE OF MASTERS, except
> of course, for individuals who were capable of rising to
> Their plane by interior effort and aspiration. If this be
> not so, why-after her death-do we find Mr. Judge and
> Mrs. Besant, apparently unable to rely on interior
> guidance, turning to supposed chelas, psychics, and
> clairvoyants in their efforts to re-establish
> communication with the Masters ? The answer is plain
> to anyone who has carefully studied what the Masters
> Themselves have written on the subject. In the long
> letter of rebuke to Colonel Olcott for his attitude
> towards H. P. B., received during his voyage to England
> in 1888, the Master K. H. writes :-" Since 1885, I have
> not written, or caused to be written, save through her
> [H. P. B.'s] agency, direct or remote, a letter or line to
> anybody in Europe or America, nor communicated
> orally with, or through any third party . . . With occult
> matters she has everything to do. We have not
> abandoned her. She is not given over to chelas.
> She is our direct agent." (1 see A GREAT
> BETRAYAL, already mentioned.)>>




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/