Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00116)

A fixation about forgeries brings about an endless repetition 
of things already discussed. 

De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:55:25 -0000

Assunto:[Spam] Theos-World Are these Phoney/Imitation Mahatma Letters??

> Are these Phoney/Imitation Mahatma Letters??: 
> Summary of the Argument & Issues
> 
> [This posting only gives the bare bones of what I will try to later
> present in greater detail. I give this outline simply to present
> a rough overview of the argument, issues and implications 
> involved. I'm hoping all contributors to this thread will try to 
> grapple with the underlying issue(s) presented and any implications 
> that there may be.] 
> 
> H.P. Blavatsky herself frames the basic argument/issue as follows:
> 
> ===============================================================
> ...We have been asked by a correspondent why he should not "be free
> to suspect some of the so-called 'precipitated' [Mahatma] 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.
> ==============================================================
> 
> BELOW are FIVE examples of Mahatma Letters considered as "phoney" 
> or "imitations" or "dubious" by certain Theosophical students:
> 
> 1881 Prayag letter (Letter 134 in first 3 eds of 
> Mahatma Letters) --- doubted by Henry Olcott
> 
> 1882 KH Letter on "God" (Letter 10 in first 3 
> eds of Mahatma Letters) --- doubted by Hugh Shearman
> 
> 1888 KH Letter to Henry Olcott (S.S. Shannon 
> Letter) --- doubted by A.P. Sinnett
> 
> 1888-1889 KH Letter on Concentrating on the Master 
> as a Living Man within you. --- doubted by Mark Jaqua
> 
> 1900 KH Letter to Annie Besant --- doubted by Dallas 
> TenBroeck, Vernon Harrison and Walter 
> A. Carrithers, Jr.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Some general observations:
> 
> All of the above individuals (Olcott, Shearman, Sinnett, Jaqua, 
> TenBroeck, and Carrithers, with the possible exception of Harrison) 
> are students of Theosophy. 
> 
> It would appear that all of the above individuals believe in the 
> existence of H.P.B.'s Masters. I am assuming Harrison did, too.
> 
> It would also appear that they believe that there are genuine 
> letters that actually were written by the Mahatmas.
> 
> But in each of the above 5 examples, the CONTENTION is made that the 
> Mahatma letters in question seem "from their contents and style, to 
> be imitations."
> 
> In other words, presumably the argument is made that the REAL Master 
> could NOT or would NOT have written said letter(s) or the contents 
> of the letters in question. 
> 
> I assume that at least in some of these instances the Theosophical 
> student may be thinking or claiming that someone else (other than 
> the real Master) must have written these letters or communications 
> and attributed the words/thoughts to the real Mahatmas. 
> 
> [NOTE: So that there is no confusion in anyone's mind about my 
> position, I am of the opinion that the first four letters are 
> genuine and are from HPB's teachers. I have some reservations about 
> the 1900 Letter to Mrs. Besant but I am inclined to agree with
> Carlos Aveline's affirmative estimation of the letter.]
> 
> I also give BELOW H.P. Blavatsky's extended remarks in reply to her 
> unnamed "correspondent" since HPB puts into words quite well many of 
> the issues and implications involved. 
> 
> In Oct. 1888 in the pages of her magazine LUCIFER, Madame Blavatsky 
> wrote:
> 
> ==========================================================
> ...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 to saying that he has 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 him 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 it is
> hardly one out of a hundred "occult" letters that is ever written by
> 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 that 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 are
> brought by the same mysterious means.
> 
> 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 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 [Richard
> Hodgson] 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."...
> ==============================================================
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1157730964.846905.6419.aldavila.hst.terra.com.br,9663,20031127114101,20031127114101
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 07/09/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4847
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/


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