Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00433)

Statements by DK on The Secret Doctrine and The Mahatma LettersAndrew Stinson, M.S.I.S.Asst. Director of Academic Computing, Elon College writes:> DK makes it plain in his dictations to AAB that it was *HE* who> dictacted the largest portions of the Secred Doctrine. It would> have been his first project, perhaps, as a Full Adept. Nevermind> that most folks believe it was DK's superiors (KH and M) who> dictated the SD - DK also states that much of the Mahatma Letters> is HPB's *own* work and not actual dictation from her Masters.> Here I do not mean to discredit them, though to some it may> appear that I am doing so. I revere HPB even higher than AAB in> many respects.Hi, Andrew. Of course, you are entitled to your opinions as theymay be reflected in the exerpt from your post above. It seemsthat you believe in HPB's bonafides and actually believe in theexistence of M., K.H. and DK. Yet it is somewhat suprising tome that instead of believing what HPB, KH and M wrote in the1880s,
you are willing to set their statements aside and believewhat Alice Bailey is writing some 30 years after HPB's death.There are Mahatma Letters as well as HPB's own statements thatindicate that M., K.H and another adept had the most to do withthe production of the Secret Doctrine. D.K. may have helped insome way, but the primary source documents from HPB's own timeclearly contradict your statement that "DK. . .dictacted thelargest portions of the Secred Doctrine."Maybe they were mistaken or lying, you may reply. But if that isa possibility, why not the possibility that the "entity"communicating through Bailey might also be lying or was mistaken?You write that "DK also states that much of the Mahatma Lettersis HPB's *own* work and not actual dictation from her Masters."Well, are you open to the possibility that "much of DK's supposedwritings through Bailey is Bailey's *own* work and not actualdictation from DK"?As to the question of whether HPB " wrote" the Mahatma Letters
ornot, you might want to consult Vernon Harrison's book* HPBlavatsky and the SPR*. As an expert documents examiner, Dr.Harrison's opinion is as follows: ". . .I find no evidence thatthe Mahatma Letters were written by Madame Blavatsky in adisguised form of her *ordinary writing* made for fraudulentpurposes. . . ." (p.x) Asterisks added. Another "handwritingexpert" (Dr. Paul Kirk) gave his opinion that Blavatsky did notwrite certain KH letters as reproduced in the plates attached toHodgson's 1885 report on Blavatsky. Kirk didn't even know thathe was giving an opinion on Blavatsky and Koot Hoomi. Thespecimens of handwriting were given to Kirk without Blavatsky'sand Koot Hoomi's names being given. See Victor Endersby's HALLOF MAGIC MIRRORS, etc. 

Of course, you may say that Dr. Harrison and Dr. Kirkwere all wrong. But are you also willing to concede thatD.K. (via Alice Bailey) was possibly wrong on this issue?Harrison and Kirk give pages of detailed reasoning fortheir conclusions. Where are DK's detailed reasoning for hisassertion?You also say: " I revere HPB even higher than AAB in manyrespects." Yet from your own post, you seem inclined to believeAAB over HPB. Certainly, it might be wise to be skeptical ofHPB's statements but why not apply that same standard to Baileyand her statements?> It is plainly stated, though I forget the exact source, except> that I *think* it is reliable, that when HPB was in Tibet> (something I have stopped even questioning, such is my confidence> and TRUST in her OWN words), one of the youngest disciples to sit> with her learning from the Mahatmas was a 14 year-old Arhat.You speak of your "confidence and TRUST in her [HPB's] OWN words"[about Tibet?] yet you seem quite willing to disbelieve
HPB's OWNwords about who helped her write the Secret Doctrine. Why?Certainly, you have the right to believe as you see fit.Certainly be skeptical of Blavatsky's claims and statements butwhy not be equally skeptical of what Bailey claims. As I see ithistorically, Bailey's claims are DEPENDENT on Blavatsky's.Blavatsky's claims are NOT dependent on Bailey's. If Blavatskycan be shown to be a fraud "pure and simple" as A. Bharatiphrases it, Bailey's claims are of a simliar cloth. But ifBlavatsky's claims are legit, there is no builtin guarantee thatBailey's claims are also legit.Daniel Caldwell



Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------
"...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. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can always access our main site by
simply typing into the URL address
bar the following 6 characters:

hpb.cc

See also THEOSOPHY: FROM LONG-SEALED ANCIENT FOUNTAINS
http://www.theosophy.info/

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]