Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00480)

Jake:

You write:

=================================================
Dan brings up that Bruce and I have
differing opinions on the 1900 letter. Bruce
may be right, I don't know, and nobody ever
will in all likelyhood. I don't care if he
is right and I am wrong, it's not a crucial
issue, I don't believe. What does Dan think
about it, he never seems to say. (Seems to
me Bruce asked him this same question.) Do
you Only have Information Dan, and never arive
at any personal conclusions? It's risky having
opinions, you know.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/36156
================================================

I realize it may be hard to keep up with all the
postings on Theos-Talk and also to remember what
everyone has said on this, that or the other, but
in at least 2 postings I gave my opinion of
the 1900 KH Letter.  Here is one of them:

==================================================
[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.]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/35935
==================================================

Also looking more closely at your following words, I would like to 
offer some comments:

=====================================================
Dan brings up that Bruce and I have
differing opinions on the 1900 letter. Bruce
may be right, I don't know, and nobody ever
will in all likelyhood. I don't care if he
is right and I am wrong, it's not a crucial
issue, I don't believe.
=====================================================

Well, it may not be a crucial issue but it is an issue and some 
students of the Mahatma Letters might want to consider all the 
implications of that issue.

I also don't care if JAKE personally is wrong or BRUCE personally is 
wrong.  But I do care about the underlying isssues as well as the 
reasons, etc. that Jake and Bruce and other students bring forward.

And then you say nobody ever will know in all likelihood.  Well, 
that may be true, depending on what you mean by that but I would 
suggest that such a statement "nobody ever will know" might also 
apply to other things concerning Theosophical history, claims, 
teachings, etc.

But the underlying issues involving this 1900 letter I think also 
apply in various degrees to other Mahatma Letters.

Even the Prayag letter is not universally accepted by all "good" 
Theosophists as actually emanating from a Mahatma.  Is this 
a "crucial" issue or not?  Well, certainly an issue.

Or take Letter 33 in the first 3 editions of THE MAHATMA LETTERS.  
You can see a transcription of that letter at:

http://theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-33.htm

Is this a real KH letter received during the time period 1880-1885 
or does it date to 1894 and was it received by Sinnett thru Maude 
Travers?

See related material about Mrs. Besant and Mr. Sinnett at:

Mrs. Besant Meets Mr. Sinnett 
http://blavatskyarchives.com/sinnettandbesantmeet.htm

Notice that in the chrono. edition of the Mahatma Letters as well as 
in the 2 editions of THE READERS GUIDE TO THE MAHATMA LETTERS that 
the letter is undated for the simple reason that it doesn't easily 
fit anywhere in the years 1880-1885.

Since I co-authored for THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY an article about Mary 
(that is, Maude Travers), later I was discussing Maude with a well-
known Theosophical historian.  It was suggested that the note added 
by Sinnett could be more readily understood if the M. was Maude.

Sinnett's note added to this Letter 33 reads:

"K.H. Letter received through M. shown to A.B."

which said historian suggested might mean:

This K.H. Letter was received through Maude and I [Sinnett] showed 
it to Annie Besant.  That is, in 1894 Sinnett was still receiving a 
few physical letters from KH (apparently thru Maude) and this Letter 
33 received in 1894 was shown to Mrs. Besant when she met Sinnett 
also in 1894.

This would make the following part of Letter 33 much more 
understandable and immediate:

"Meanwhile use every effort to develop such relations with A. Besant 
that your work may run on parallel lines and in full sympathy; an 
easier request than some of mine with which you have ever loyally 
complied. You may, if you see fit -- show this note to her, only."

I agree this is not necessarily a crucial issue.  Possibly quite 
minor but it goes against the assumption that all the letters in THE 
MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT were received sometime 1880-1885 and 
of course during H.P. Blavatsky's lifetime.  

Daniel
http://hpb.cc