Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00103)

Friends, 

I am aware of the theory according to which Henry Olcott is the real author of the 1900 letter. 

But then what are the evidences, hints, or what is  the actual rationale of such a hypothesis? 

Styles of Masters' writings often varied for several complex reasons. 

The letter obviously was not forged to "help" Besant, as it is extremely hard to her.

In theory, if we would accept Olcott as a FORGER (a grave accusation which should be founded) he could have done that in an attempt to limit some of Besant's mistakes.  

But then, how could poor old Olcott foresee and foretell in that letter   most of the mistakes the Adyar TS would do, and did, in the following decades???

His spiritual insights were often limited in Occult matters. 

But he was a loyal Leo and accusing him olf forgeries is a litlle bit strong. 

Then there is the argument that Besant in 1900 could not deserve a leter any longer.

Perhaps she did not deserve a letter any longer, but the movement might deserve it -- and HPB.  Because one of the main goals of that letter was, obviously, to stop speculations of an immediate rebirth of HPB.  And the letter succeeded in that, which, by the way, may have been an important occult question at that momemt.  

Finally, that letter was received in the very year (1900) which HPB wrote would be the exact year of transition into the Aquarius Era.  An adequate moment for a formal last farewell in outer communications, then. 

The letter was censored by Adyar, and its text was recovered in its entirety to the movement as a whole (not to Adyar TS) by a non-Adyar theosophist, only during the years of the end-of-20th-century-effort.  That letter was not addressed exclusively for that time and place.  It does not legitimize Anie Besant with regard to William Judge. Far from it, in my view.

I will be happy to hear more opinions and testimonies on this subject. Perhaps there may be better arguments and hints to defend the idea that the 1900 letter is not authentic.   (Vernon Harrison's view does not answer my arguments above.)    

Best regards,   Carlos.  


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