Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00630)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:

>It is my contention that she had a real message to give, and used 
> phenomena to attract attention, at least some of which i believe 
was 
> faked. In addition, I believe that, real or faked, it was a mistake 
to 
> use such phenomena, and, however it helped in the short run, worked 
> ultimately to her detriment in the long run. I find a major saving 
grace 
> that she treated such phenomena as being unimportant, and not part 
of 
> the teachings. And I believe that anybody who considers the genuity 
of 
> the phenomena to be required to believe the teachings misses her 
point 
> entirely.
> 
> Both Blavatsky and the Mahatmas pointed out that argument 
from 
> authority is a logical fallacy; that we are to believe or 
disbelieve 
> their teachings, not based on who they came from, but on our own 
> knowledge, belief and logic regarding the teachings themselves. So 
I do 
> that. This includes, for example, if one interpretation of the 
teachings 
> violate that which has been measured, see if another interpretation 
does 
> fit in. Those who consider Blavatsky and the Mahatmas to be 
infallible 
> often do not differentiate between what they actually wrote and 
their 
> interpretation of what they actually wrote.

Without considering "The Mahatma Letters" a Bible, I would suggest 
that there is support for your view in the very first letter to 
Sinnett (1880). Remember, Sinnett's proposal was for the Mahatmas to 
dematerialise the "Pioneer" in Allahabad, India, e re-materialise it 
in London, while de-materialising "The Times" of London and re-
materialising it in Allahabad. This is what K.H. wrote:

"Esteemed Brother and Friend,

Precisely because the test of the London newspaper would close the 
mouths of the skeptics — it is unthinkable. See it in what light you 
will — the world is yet in its first stage of disenthralment if not 
development, hence — unprepared. Very true, we work by natural not 
supernatural means and laws. But, as on the one hand Science would 
find itself unable (in its present state) to account for the wonders 
given in its name, and on the other the ignorant masses would still 
be left to view the phenomenon in the light of a miracle, everyone 
who would thus be made a witness to the occurrence would be thrown 
off his balance and the results would be deplorable. Believe me, it 
would be so — especially for yourself who originated the idea, and 
the devoted woman who so foolishly rushes into the wide open door 
leading to notoriety. This door, though opened by so friendly a hand 
as yours, would prove very soon a trap — and a fatal one indeed for 
her. And such is not surely your object?

Madmen are they, who, speculating but upon the present, wilfully shut 
their eyes to the past when made already to remain naturally blind to 
the future! Far be it from me, to number you with the latter — 
therefore will I endeavour to explain. Were we to accede to your 
desires know you really what consequences would follow in the trail 
of success? The inexorable shadow which follows all human innovations 
moves on, yet few are they who are ever conscious of its approach and 
dangers. What are then to expect they who would offer the world an 
innovation which, owing to human ignorance, if believed in, will 
surely be attributed to those dark agencies the two-thirds of 
humanity believe in and dread as yet? You say — half London would be 
converted if you could deliver them a Pioneer on its day of 
publication. I beg to say that if the people believed the thing true 
they would kill you before you could make the round of Hyde Park; if 
it were not believed true, the least that could happen would be the 
loss of your reputation and good name, — for propagating such ideas.
The success of an attempt of such a kind as the one you propose, must 
be calculated and based upon a thorough knowledge of the people 
around you. It depends entirely upon the social and moral conditions 
of the people in their bearing on these deepest and most mysterious 
questions which can stir the human mind — the deific powers in man 
and the possibilities contained in nature. How many, even of your 
best friends, of those who surround you, who are more than 
superficially interested in these abstruse problems? You could count 
them upon the fingers of your right hand."

Again and again her Teachers said that HPB was far from perfect, and 
she said it herself. Perhaps one of the problems here is the 
identification, made by many, of the message with the messenger. The 
Mahatmas declared that they had searched for one hundred years in 
order to find someone to carry out the task of re-presenting the 
Arcane Wisdom to the world, until they found HPB, but they also 
suggested that she was a bundle of nerves at times. Without comparing 
her to the historical Jesus, I think his words in John (7:16) express 
a similar attitude in those who seek to convey timeless truths to the 
world: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."

Pedro