Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00592)

I think this passage in the Mahatma letters relates to this :

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-55.htm

"There is a hero-worshipping tendency clearly showing itself, and you,
my friend, are not quite free from it yourself. I am fully aware of
the change that has lately come over you, but this does not change the
main question. If you would go on with your occult studies and
literary work -- then learn to be loyal to the Idea, rather than to my
poor self. When something is to be done never think whether I wish it,
before acting: I wish everything that can, in great or small degree,
push on this agitation. But I am far from being perfect hence
infallible in all I do; tho' it is not quite as you imagine having now
discovered. For you know -- or think you know, of one K.H. -- and can
know but of one, whereas there are two distinct personages answering
to that name in him you know. The riddle is only apparent and easy to
solve, were you only to know what a real Mahatma is. You have seen by
the Kiddle incident -- perchance allowed to develop to its bitter end
for a purpose -- that even an "adept" when acting in his body is not
beyond mistakes due to human carelessness."

Letter 55 Pasadena Letter 130 Chronological


Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> Drpsionic@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 8/26/04 9:09:56 PM Central Daylight Time, 
> > aupanishad@m... writes:
> > 
> > << His "motor" 
> > was a concoction of threads and such according to the ones who 
> > checked it out in his day. >>
> > 
> > Actually it was more a system of compressed air. It was one of
the great 
> > frauds of the 19th century. The irony is that the air system was
so advanced 
> > that if Keeley had chosen to market that instead of his fake motor
he would have 
> > been legitimately wealthy.
> 
> Well, you convinced me to do a little research. Here's what came
out on 
> top of Google:
> 
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keely.htm
> 
> Notice that nobody really examined his work until after THE SECRET 
> DOCTRINE was written. Blavatsky very often relied on the observances of 
> others in her work, and when those observances were faulty, it would 
> translate into her work (for example, her ideas of hypnosis seem to
have 
> come from the seminal but flawed works of Dr. James Braid, and his 
> errors appear in her works).
> 
> If Blavatsky's word isn't enough, this is a major reason for realizing 
> that Blavatsky's works were based in the knowledge of her time, and 
> filled with second-hand flaws, incorrect guesses designed to fill the 
> holes in the knowledge, and lack of a vocabulary to describe many
concepts.
> 
> Even assuming the Mahatmas were who they said they were often
relied on 
> their human memories for some details. I am aware of a number of cases 
> where even advanced scientists who should know better will give an 
> answer which, while "common knowledge", is entirely false. For example, 
> I was once in a discussion with a group that included a nuclear 
> physicist on airplane wings. The physicist explained that they work by 
> the Bernoulli effect. Well, if the physicist had done the math, he
would 
> have seen that the Bernoulli effect is insufficient to generate the
lift 
> necessary for planes to work, and, in addition, would not explain the 
> effectiveness of some wing shapes over others. I can see how those who 
> are referred to as the Mahatmas, similarly, could just take incorrect 
> common knowledge for details that they would never have worried about 
> had they not been asked about them.
> 
> Bart