Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00530)

Jake wrote:

========================================================
Maybe it [the KH Concentration letter] was [written or transmitted 
by] someone [?????] who was an imperfect instrument, and got some 
real thoughts mixed up with trash (not necessarily even with a 
Teacher being involved [??!!!] - reflections in the astral light.)
========================================================

NOTE: In the above quote, I've added explanatory words and also a 
few comments in brackets [ ].

First, I give the transcription of some of the relevant passages of 
this KH Concentration letter as found in ES. Instruction #5. 

See:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/khletterinesinstr5.htm

This specific KH letter dates from 1888-1889-1890 when H.P. 
Blavatsky was STILL alive. 

For example, portions of it appear in THE PATH in 1889 and 1890.

See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/36172

Portions of this KH Concentration letter also appears in an ES 
publication while HPB was STILL alive and in charge of the Esoteric 
Section. 

See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/36173

In fact the earliest version of this letter that I found was in the 
back of William Q. Judge's own personal diary for 1888.

So WHO was the someone (mentioned by Jake) to transmit this letter 
if not HPB or Judge??? 

And more importantly, would either HPB or Judge allow a PHONEY 
mahatma letter to appear in the pages of THE PATH as well as in an 
ES document without at least protesting it and calling students 
attention to this matter???

Furthermore, why would Judge (after HPB's death) include portions of 
this KH Concentration letter in E.S. Instruction #5?

In at least 2 editions of this Instruction #5, one finds the 
relevant KH Concentration letter and it is even attributed to Master 
Koot Hoomi....

Furthermore, if the letter from KH on visualizing the Master within 
is "phoney" as Jake contends, then I suggest that the following 
words by HPB also apply to this letter:

==============================================
...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....

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 [KOOT HOOMI] WHO WOULD TOLERATE ONE SINGLE FRAUDULENT 
LINE IN HIS NAME, WOULD WINK AT AN UNLIMITED REPETITION OF THE 
DECEPTION. . . .
==============================================
Lucifer, October 1888.  Caps added.  

So how does one grapple with THIS issue raised by H.P. Blavatsky 
herself?

Or is it easier to simply ignore HPB's comment??

See more of HPB's own comments on this matter at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/35713

Finally, this explanation [which is quoted at the beginning of this 
posting] and proposed by Jake appears to also be the SAME kind of
purposed explanation offered by A.P. Sinnett, Hugh Shearman, Henry 
Olcott, C.W. Leadbeater and OTHER Theosophical students when they 
DISAGREE with the contents of OTHER letters written by Master KH or 
M.

Daniel
Blavatsky Study Center
http://hpb.cc