Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00434)

Statements by DK on The Secret Doctrine and The Mahatma Letters

Andrew Stinson, M.S.I.S.Asst. Director of Academic Computing, 
Elon College wrote once on Theos-Talk:

--------------------------------------
DK makes it plain in his dictations to AAB that it was 
*HE* 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 they
may be reflected in the exerpt from your post above. 
It seems that you believe in HPB's bonafides and actually
believe in the existence of M., K.H. and DK. Yet it 
is somewhat suprising to me that instead of believing what 
HPB, KH and M wrote in the 1880s, you are willing to set 
their statements aside and believe what Alice Bailey is
writing some 30 years after HPB's death.

There are Mahatma Letters as well as HPB's own statements 
that indicate that M., K.H and another adept had the most 
to do with the production of the Secret Doctrine. D.K. 
may have helped in some way, but the primary source documents 
from HPB's own time clearly contradict your statement 
that "DK. . .dictacted the largest portions of the Secret
Doctrine."

Maybe they were mistaken or lying, you may reply. But if 
that is a 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 Letters
is HPB's *own* work and not actual dictation from her
Masters."

Well, are you open to the possibility that "much of DK's
supposed writings through Bailey is Bailey's *own* work 
and not actual dictation from DK"?

As to the question of whether HPB " wrote" the Mahatma 
Letters or not, you might want to consult Vernon Harrison's 
book *HP Blavatsky and the SPR*. As an expert documents 
examiner, Dr.Harrison's opinion is as follows: 

". . .I find no evidence that the Mahatma Letters were 
written by Madame Blavatsky in a disguised form of her 
*ordinary writing* made for fraudulent purposes. . .
." (p.x) Asterisks added. 

Another "handwriting expert" (Dr. Paul Kirk) gave his
opinion that Blavatsky did not write certain KH letters 
as reproduced in the plates attached to Hodgson's 1885 
report on Blavatsky. Kirk didn't even know that he was 
giving an opinion on Blavatsky and Koot Hoomi. The specimens 
of handwriting were given to Kirk without Blavatsky's
and Koot Hoomi's names being given. See Victor Endersby's 
book titled HALL OF MAGIC MIRRORS.

Of course, you may say that Dr. Harrison and Dr. Kirk
were all wrong. But are you also willing to concede that
D.K. (via Alice Bailey) was possibly wrong on
this issue?

Harrison and Kirk give pages of detailed reasoning for their
conclusions. Where are DK's detailed reasoning for his
assertion?

You also say:

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

I revere HPB even higher than AAB in many respects.

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

Yet from your own post, you seem inclined to believe
AAB over HPB. Certainly, it might be wise to be
skeptical of HPB's statements but why not apply that 
same standard to Bailey and her statements?

You go on to write:

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

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 OWN words 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 but why not be equally skeptical of what Bailey
claims? 

As I see it historically, Bailey's claims are DEPENDENT on
Blavatsky's. Blavatsky's claims are NOT dependent on 
Bailey's. If Blavatsky could be shown to be a fraud 
"pure and simple" as A. Bharati phrases it, Bailey's
claims are of a simliar cloth. But if Blavatsky's claims 
are legit, there is no builtin guarantee that Bailey's 
claims are also legit.

Daniel

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/

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