Theos-Talk Archives (October 2005 Message tt00060)

thank you friends...
actually, I didn't look it right at it...
i tried to delete the post... but lost my conexion...
so, anyway.. I think it can be a real letter...
ant thank you dallas for your patience on posting the material.



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck"
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 10/11/2005 11:02 AM
> 
> 
> Re is K.H's letter of 1900 to Besant real?
> 
> 
> Dear K and friends:
> 
> 
> I would like to place before you some of the Masters' words on this
subject
> of their sending letters or notes to various students in the early
days of
> the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT.
> 
> I do this so as to make it clear to all. It is a "problem" created
by our
> almost entire reliance on physical evidence.
> 
> The Master shows in some detail the way in which this "phenomena" is
> performed.
> 
> 
> As to "proof" I would suggest that the only appropriate source for
this lies
> in the nature of the suggestions and recommendations offered.
> 
> As to whether the recipient (s) adopted them is an entirely
different matter
> and the pages of history alone record that. At this distance in time
we may
> all look back and form our own evaluation. As I see it, there can be no
> "authoritative verdict" offered in such cases. 
> 
> I offer these as they relate primarily to "precipitated letters."
But, the
> moral laws relate to anything offered by H P B or others that have
relation
> to Theosophical matters - and to such a book as The VOICE OF THE
SILENCE, to
> letters, notes, the basis for the "Judge Case," etc...
> 
> --DTB
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> 
> On: PLAGIARISM OF TEXTS
> 
> Their "AUTHENTICITY" ?
> 
> 
> HPB wrote:
> 
> "But there is another, and a far worse condition implied. For all
that the
> recipient of "occult" letters can possibly know, and on the simple
grounds
> of probability and common honesty, the unseen correspondent who would
> tolerate one single fraudulent line in his name, would wink at an
unlimited
> repetition of the deception. And this leads directly to the
following. All
> the so-called occult letters being supported by identical proofs,
they have
> all to stand of fall together. If one is to be doubted, then all
have, and
> the series of letters in the "Occult World," "Esoteric Buddhism," etc.,
> etc., may be, and there is no reason why they should not be in such
> case--frauds, "clever impostures," and "forgeries," [ see M L, pp.
307, 410,
> 414, 419-424, 431 ] such as the ingenuous though stupid agent of the
> "S.P.R." has made them out to be, in order to raise in the public
estimation
> the "scientific" acumen and standard of his "Principals."   
> HPB--"Lodges of Magic" HPB Art. I. p. 291-2
> 
> 
> Mr. Judge wrote:
> 
> "Some years ago H.P.B. was charged [ by A.P.Sinnett ] with misuse of
> Mahatmas' names and handwritings, with forgery of messages from the
> Mahatmas, and with humbugging the public and the T.S. therewith. Those
> charges had floated vaguely about for sometime...afterwards, writing
on the
> subject in "Lodges of Magic" [ HPB Articles 1, p. 291 ] in LUCIFER
[Vol. 3,
> 
> p. 92-3] the question of genuineness or the opposite of such
messages was
> dealt with, and what she wrote is here presented for
reconsideration. It
> covers two matters.
> 
> First, it proves out of her own mouth what the PATH not long ago
said that
> "if one letter has to be doubted then all have" to be doubted. 
Hence if the
> Letter to some Brahmins ["Prayag Letter" -- MAHATMA LETTERS, p.
461-3 --] is
> a fraud, as Col. Olcott and another say, then all the rest are, also.
> 
> Second, it applies precisely to the present state of affairs in
respect to
> messages from Masters, just as if she had so long ago foreseen the
present
> and left the article so that tyros in occultism, such as the present
> agitators are, might have something to show them how to use their
judgment.
> The portion selected from her article reads:
> 
> We have been asked by a correspondent why he should not "be free to
suspect
> some of the so-called 'precipitated' letters as being forgeries,"
giving as
> his reason for it that while some of them bear the stamp of (to him)
> undeniable genuineness, others seem from their contents and style, to be
> imitations. This is equivalent of saying that he had such an unerring
> spiritual insight as to be able to detect the false from the true,
though he
> has never met a Master, nor been given any key by which to test his
alleged
> communications.  
> 
> The inevitable consequence of applying his untrained judgment in
such cases,
> would be to make his as likely as not to declare false what was
genuine and
> genuine what was false. Thus what criterion has any one to decide
between
> one "precipitated" letter, or another such letter?  
> 
> Who except their authors, or those whom they employ as their
amanuenses (the
> chelas and disciples) can tell? For if hardly one out of a hundred
"occult"
> letters that is ever written in the hand of the Master, in whose
name and on
> whose behalf they are sent, as the Masters have neither need nor
leisure to
> write them; and when a Master says: "I wrote that letter" it means
only
> that every word in it was dictated by him and impressed under his direct
> supervision.  
> 
> Generally they make their chela, whether near or far away, write (or
> precipitate) them, by impressing upon his mind the ideas they wish
> expressed, and if necessary aiding him in the picture printing
process of
> precipitation. It depends entirely upon the chela's state of
development,
> how accurately the ideas may be transmitted and the writing-model
imitated.
> Thus the non-adept recipient is left in the dilemma of uncertainty,
whether
> if one letter is false all may not be, for as far as intrinsic evidence
> goes, all come from the same source, and all are brought by the same
> mysterious means.  
> 
> But there is another and far worse condition implied. All the so-called
> occult letters being supported by identical proofs, they have all to
stand
> or fall together. If one is to be doubted, then all have, and the
series of
> letters in the OCCULT WORLD, ESOTERIC BUDDHISM, etc., etc., may be, and
> there is no reason why they should not be in such a case,--frauds,
"clever
> impostures," and "forgeries" such as the ingenuous though stupid
agent of
> the "S.P.R." has made them out to be, in order to raise in the public
> estimation the scientific acumen and standard of his "Principals"...  
> ["H.P.B."] WQJ Articles I, p. 55
> 
> 
> The Mahatma wrote: 
> 
> "I am accused of "plagiarism." We, of Tibet and China, know not what you
> mean by the word. I do, but this is no reason, perhaps, why I should
accept
> your literary laws. Any writer has the privilege of taking out whole
> sentences from the dictionary of PAI-WOUEN-YEN-FU the greatest in
the world,
> full of quotations from every known writer, and containing all the
phrases
> ever used -- and to frame them to express his thought. 
> 
> This does not apply to the Kiddle case which happened just as I told
you.
> But you may find, perchance throughout my letters twenty detached
sentences
> which may have been already used in books or MSS. 
> 
> When you write upon some subject you surround yourself with books of
> references etc.: when we write upon something the Western opinion about
> which is unknown to us, we surround ourselves with hundreds of
paras: upon
> this particular topic from dozens of different works -- impressed
upon the
> Akasa. 
> 
> What wonder then, that not only a chela entrusted with the work and
innocent
> of any knowledge of the meaning of plagiarism, but even myself --
should use
> occasionally a whole sentence already existent applying it only to
another
> -- our own idea? I have told you of this before and it is no fault
of mine
> if your friends and enemies will not remain satisfied with the
explanation.
> When I shall undertake to write an original prize-essay I may be more
> careful. 
> 
> For the Kiddle business it is your own fault. Why have you printed the
> OCCULT WORLD before sending it to me for revision? I would have never
> allowed the passage to pass; nor the "Lal Sing" either foolishly
invented as
> half a nom de plume by Djwal K. and carelessly allowed by me to take
root
> without thinking of the consequences. 
> 
> We are not infallible, all-foreseeing "Mahatmas" at every hour of
the day,
> good friend: none of you have even learned to remember so much."
> MAHATMA LETTERS pp. 364
> 
> 
> "From the right point of view, if you will know, it is only the
expression
> of another person's original ideas, some independent sentence, a
thought,
> which in its brief completeness is capable of being constructed into
a wise
> motto or maxim that could be constituted into what is regarded as
plagiarism
> - the pilfering of another person's 'brain property'.  
> 
> There is not a book but is the shadow of some other book, the concrete
> image, very often, of the astral body of it in some other work upon
the same
> or approximate subject.  
> 
> I agree entirely with Dr Cromwell when he says that 'true talent
will become
> original in the very act of engaging itself with the ideas of
another;' nay
> will often convert the dross of previous authors into the golden ore
that
> shines forth to the world as its own peculiar creation.  
> 
> 'From a series of extravagant and weak Italian romances, Shakespeare
took
> the plots, the characters, and the major part of the incidents of those
> dramatic works which have exalted his name, as an original writer, above
> that of every other in the annals of literature.'
> LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM, Series I, pp 105-6
> 
> 
> 
> "Having been called repeatedly a "sophist," a "myth," a "Mrs.
Harris" and a
> "lower intelligence" by the enemies, I rather not be regarded as a
> deliberate artificer and a liar by bogus friends -- I mean those who
would
> accept me reluctantly even were I to rise to their own ideal in their
> estimation instead of the reverse -- as at present. Personally, I am
> indifferent, of course, to the issue. 
> 
> But for your sake and that of the Society I may make one more effort to
> clear the horizon of one of its "blackest" clouds. Let us then
recapitulate
> the situation and see what your Western sages say of it. "K.H." -- it is
> settled -- is a plagiarist -- if it be, after all a question of K.H.
and not
> of the "two Occidental Humourists." 
> 
> In the former case, an alleged "adept" unable to evolve out of his
"small
> oriental brain" any idea or words worthy of Plato turned to that
deep tank
> of profound philosophy, the Banner of Light, and drew therefrom the
> sentences best fitted to express his rather entangled ideas, which had
> fallen from the inspired lips of Mr. Henry Kiddle! In the other
alternative,
> the case becomes still more difficult to comprehend -- save on the
theory of
> the irresponsible mediumship of the pair of Western jokers. 
> 
> However startling and impracticable the theory, that two persons who
have
> been clever enough to carry on undetected the fraud of personating
for five
> years several adepts -- not one of whom resembles the other; -- two
persons,
> of whom one, at any rate, is a fair master of English and can hardly be
> suspected of paucity of original ideas, should turn for a bit of
plagiarism
> to a journal as the Banner, widely known and read by most English
knowing
> Spiritualists; and above all, pilfer their borrowed sentences from the
> discourse of a conspicuous new convert, whose public utterances were
at the
> very time being read and welcomed by every medium and Spiritualist;
however
> improbable all this and much more, yet any alternative seems more
welcome
> than simple truth. 
> 
> The decree is pronounced; "K.H.," whoever he is, has stolen passages
from
> Mr. Kiddle. Not only this, but as shewn by "a Perplexed Reader" --
he has
> omitted inconvenient words and has so distorted the ideas he has
borrowed as
> to divert them from their original intention to suit his own very
different
> purpose." 
> 
> Well, to this, if I had any desire to argue out the question I might
answer
> that of what constitutes plagiarism, being a borrowing of ideas
rather than
> of words and sentences, there was none in point of fact, and I stand
> acquitted by my own accusers. As Milton says -- "such kind of
borrowing as
> this, if it be not bettered by the borrower is accounted plagiary." 
> 
> Having distorted the ideas "appropriated," and, as now published --
diverted
> them from their original intention to suit my own "very different
purpose,"
> on such grounds my literary larceny does not appear very formidable
after
> all? And even, were there no other explanation offered, the most
that could
> be said is, that owing to the poverty of words at the command of Mr.
> Sinnett's correspondent, and his ignorance of the art of English
> composition, he has adapted a few of innocent Mr. Kiddle's
effusions, some
> of his excellently constructed sentences -- to express his own contrary
> ideas. 
> 
> The above is the only line of argument I have given to, and
permitted to be
> used in, an editorial by the "gifted editor" of the Theosophist, who has
> been off her head since the accusation. Verily woman -- is a dreadful
> calamity in this fifth race! 
> 
> However, to you and some few, whom you have permission to select
among your
> most trusted theosophists, taking first care to pledge them by word of
> honour to keep the little revelation to themselves, I will now
explain the
> real facts of this "very puzzling" psychological mystery. The
solution is so
> simple, and the circumstances so amusing, that I confess I laughed
when my
> attention was drawn to it, some time since. Nay, it is calculated to
make me
> smile even now, were it not the knowledge of the pain it gives to
some true
> friends. 
> 
> The letter in question was framed by me while on a journey and on
> horse-back. It was dictated mentally, in the direction of, and
> "precipitated" by, a young chela not yet expert at this branch of
Psychic
> chemistry, and who had to transcribe it from the hardly visible imprint.
> Half of it, therefore, was omitted and the other half more or less
distorted
> by the "artist." When asked by him at the time, whether I would look
it over
> and correct I answered, imprudently, I confess -- "anyhow will do,
my boy --
> it is of no great importance if you skip a few words." I was
physically very
> tired by a ride of 48 hours consecutively, and (physically again) --
half
> asleep. Besides this I had very important business to attend to
psychically
> and therefore little remained of me to devote to that letter. It was
doomed,
> I suppose. 
> 
> When I woke I found it had already been sent on, and, as I was not then
> anticipating its publication, I never gave it from that time a
thought. --
> Now, I had never evoked spiritual Mr. Kiddle's physiognomy, never
had heard
> of his existence, was not aware of his name. Having -- owing to our
> correspondence and your Simla surroundings and friends -- felt
interested in
> the intellectual progress of the Phenomenalists which progress by
the bye, I
> found rather moving backward in the case of American Spiritualists
-- I had
> directed my attention some two months previous to the great annual
camping
> movement of the latter, in various directions, among others to Lake
or Mount
> Pleasant.
> 
> Some of the curious ideas and sentences representing the general
hopes and
> aspirations of the American Spiritualists remained impressed on my
memory,
> and I remembered only these ideas and detached sentences quite apart
from
> the personalities of those who harboured or pronounced them. Hence, my
> entire ignorance of the lecturer whom I have innocently defrauded as it
> would appear, and who now raises the hue and cry. Yet, had I dictated my
> letter in the form it now appears in print, it would certainly look
> suspicious, and, however far from what is generally called
plagiarism, yet
> in the absence of any inverted commas, it would lay a foundation for
> censure. But I did nothing of the kind, as the original impression now
> before me clearly shows. 
> 
> And before I proceed any further, I must give you some explanation
of this
> mode of precipitation. [ MAHATMA LETTERS 265, 342, 471, 480] The
recent
> experiments of the Psychic Research Society will help you greatly to
> comprehend the rationale of this "mental telegraphy." You have
observed in
> the Journal of that body how thought transference is cumulatively
affected.
> The image of the geometrical or other figure which the active brain
has had
> impressed upon it, is gradually imprinted upon the recipient brain
of the
> passive subject -- as the series of reproductions illustrated in the
cuts
> show. Two factors are needed to produce a perfect and instantaneous
mental
> telegraphy -- close concentration in the operator, and complete
receptive
> passivity in the "reader" -- subject. Given a disturbance of either
> condition, and the result is proportionately imperfect. The "reader"
does
> not see the image as in the "telegrapher's" brain, but as arising in his
> own. When the latter's thought wanders, the psychic current becomes
broken,
> the communication disjointed and incoherent. In a case such as mine, the
> chela had, as it were, to pick up what he could from the current I was
> sending him and, as above remarked, patch the broken bits together
as best
> he might. 
> 
> Do not you see the same thing in ordinary mesmerism -- the maya
impressed
> upon the subject's imagination by the operator becoming, now
stronger, now
> feebler, as the latter keeps the intended illusive image more or less
> steadily before his own fancy? 
> 
> And how often the clairvoyants reproach the magnetiser for taking their
> thoughts off the subject under consideration? 
> 
> And the mesmeric healer will always bear you witness that if he permits
> himself to think of anything but the vital current he is pouring
into his
> patient, he is at once compelled to either establish the current
afresh or
> stop the treatment. 
> 
> So I, in this instance, having at the moment more vividly in my mind the
> psychic diagnosis of current Spiritualistic thought, of which the Lake
> Pleasant speech was one marked symptom, unwittingly transferred that
> reminiscence more vividly than my own remarks upon it and deductions
> therefrom. 
> 
> So to say, (the "despoiled victim's" -- Mr. Kiddle's -- utterances)
came out
> as a "high light" and were more sharply photographed (first in the
chela's
> brain and thence on the paper before him, a double process and one
far more
> difficult than "thought reading" simply) while the rest, -- my remarks
> thereupon and arguments -- as I now find, are hardly visible and quite
> blurred on the original scraps before me. 
> 
> Put into a mesmeric subject's hand a sheet of blank paper, tell him it
> contains a certain chapter of some book that you have read,
concentrate your
> thoughts upon the words, and see how -- provided that he has himself not
> read the chapter, but only takes it from your memory -- his reading will
> reflect your own more or less vivid successive recollections of your
> author's language. 
> 
> The same as to the precipitation by the chela of the transferred thought
> upon (or rather, into) paper: if the mental picture received be
feeble his
> visible reproduction of it must correspond. And the more so in
proportion to
> the closeness of attention he gives. He might -- were he but merely
a person
> of the true mediumistic temperament -- be employed by his "Master"
as a sort
> of psychic printing machine producing lithographed or psychographed
> impressions of what the operator had in mind; his nerve-system, the
> machine, his nerve-aura the printing fluid, the colours drawn from that
> exhaustless storehouse of pigments (as of everything else) the
Akasa. But
> the medium and the chela are diametrically dissimilar and the latter
acts
> consciously, except under exceptional circumstances during
development not
> necessary to dwell upon here. 
> 
> Well, as soon as I heard of the charge -- the commotion among my
defenders
> having reached me across the eternal snows -- I ordered an investigation
> into the original scraps of the impression. At the first glance I
saw that
> it was I, the only and most guilty party, -- the poor little boy
having done
> but that which he was told. Having now restored the characters and
the lines
> -- omitted and blurred beyond hope of recognition by anyone but their
> original evolver -- to their primitive colour and places, I now find my
> letter reading quite differently as you will observe. 
> 
> Turning to the OCCULT WORLD -- the copy sent by you -- to the page
cited,
> (namely p. 149 in the first edition) I was struck, upon carefully
reading
> it, by the great discrepancy between the sentences. A gap, so to say, of
> ideas between part 1 (from line 1 to line 25) and part 2 -- the
plagiarized
> portion so-called.
> 
> There seems no connection at all between the two; for what has,
indeed, the
> determination of our chiefs (to prove to a skeptical world that physical
> phenomena are as reducible to law as anything else) to do with
Plato's ideas
> which "rule the world" or "practical Brotherhood of Humanity?" 
> 
> I fear that it is your personal friendship alone for the writer that has
> blinded you to the discrepancy and disconnection of ideas in this
abortive
> "precipitation," even until now. Otherwise you could not have failed to
> perceive that something was wrong on that page; that there was a glaring
> defect in the connection. 
> 
> Moreover, I have to plead guilty to another sin: I have never so much as
> looked at my letters in print -- until the day of the forced
investigation.
> I had read only your own original matter, feeling it a loss of time
to go
> over my hurried bits and scraps of thought. But now, I have to ask
you to
> read the passages as they were originally dictated by me, and make the
> comparison with the Occult World before you. 
> 
> I transcribe them with my own hand this once, whereas the letter in your
> possession was written by the chela. I ask you also to compare this
> hand-writing with that of some of the earlier letters you received
from me.
> Bear in mind, also the "O.L.'s" emphatic denial at Simla that my first
> letter had ever been written by myself. I felt annoyed at her gossip and
> remarks then; it may serve a good purpose now. 
> 
> Alas! by no means are we all "gods"; especially when you remember
that since
> the palmy days of the "impressions" and "precipitations" -- "K.H."
has been
> born into a new and higher light, and even that one, in no wise the most
> dazzling to be acquired on this earth. Verily the Light of
Omniscience and
> infallible Prevision on this earth -- that shines only for the highest
> CHOHAN alone is yet far away from me! 
> 
> I enclose the copy verbatim from the restored fragments underlining
in red
> [these passages are printed in italics. -- ED.] the omitted
> sentences for easier comparison. 
> (Page 149. - Barker First Edition.) ..."   
> MAHATMA LETTERS, Barker, pp 420-425
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> I hope this will satisfy you,
> 
> 
> Best wishes, 
> 
> 
> Dallas
> 
> ==============================
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: krishtar
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:18 AM
> To: 
> Subject: Re: is K. H's letter of 1900 to Besant real?
> 
> Aren't those letters written by the master's chelas?
> 
> They often did the work for the mahatmas. Slight differences this
way could 
> occur, IMHO.
> 
> Krishtar
> 
> ==============================================
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Alaya" 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:13 PM
> Subject: is K. H's letter of 1900 to Besant real?
> 
> 
> I question came to my mind.
> 
> I've just seen the facsimile of the letter and it doesn't seem to
be K.
> H's handwriting
> it's not blue, the "t" are not crossed like in the other letters 
and it's
> a more 'round' hand writing....
> 
> can anyone present any proof about this letter being real or false?
>