Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00044)

Perhaps the most common sense thing to do would be to refer to Bills Posting of the Day.  HPB could not prevent them from organizing "their" truth!
Cass

danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com> wrote:                                  Jake, 
 
 You write:
 
 ============================================
 About HPB quoting from ver Planck's
 Path article: This doesn't necessarily
 mean anything, if she didn't see the
 Whole communication. Go through any
 neo-theosophy book or channeler, there
 are many isolated statements that one
 has to agree with. HPB was always wanting
 to "peg out," maybe she was hoping against
 hope that someone else was a reliable connection
 with her teachers.
 ===========================================
 
 But Jake, weren't you just a day or so ago mentioning
 the KH letter to Olcott in Aug. 1888?
 
 KH wrote:
 
 =============================================
 Since 1885 I have not written, nor
 caused to be written save thro'her [HPB's]
 agency, direct or remote, a letter or
 line to anybody in Europe or America,
 nor communicated orally with, or thro'
 any third party....
 ==============================================
 
 In other words, for a period of 3 years if not
 more, KH had written/communicated only thru HPB.
 
 PLEASE NOTE that HPB felt that this KH letter was important
 enough that she published most of the letter (including
 the above extract) in the Oct. 1888 issue of LUCIFER.  Why?
 
 And the next year 1889 we find even Madame Blavatsky herself 
 referring to this important Aug. 1888 statement by KH.
 
 In a letter dated April 30th, 1889 to Elliott Coues,
 HPB writes:
 
 =====================================================
 Your wise advice that such Mahatma messages should be confined to 
 one channel, "the only genuine and original H. P. B. your friend," 
 was anticipated by Mahatma K. H. in so many words. Then why do you 
 kick against that?
 =====================================================
 
 And in this same letter HPB shows that she WAS CHECKING with the
 Masters about certain letters.  She writes to Coues:
 
 =======================================================
 I know nothing about the number of messages you may have received 
 from Masters through Judge, whom I would never believe capable of 
 it, or any one else. Once Mahatma K. H. and my Master say they did 
 not emanate from them, I am bound to believe what they say; and 
 therefore must suppose such messages either tricks made by chelas or 
 pure frauds. 
 =======================================================
 
 Take all of the above and their implications and then compare to 
 what was featured in the lead article in THE PATH only three months 
 later:
 
 That is almost a page of extracts from an Adept letter.
 
 See Julia's quoting at:
 
 http://blavatskyarchives.com/pathjuly1889.htm
 
 And notice Julia's prefatory remarks to this Adept letter:
 
 "...let us read some remarks fron an Oriental Adept which came into
 our possession MANY MONTHS ago...."  caps added.
 
 Certainly HPB would KNOW if she had transmitted this communication
 and certainly she had the means of ascertaining the origin of this 
 adept letter, don't you agree?
 
 Also in light of the fact that during this very time period there 
 were bogus communications emanating from KH from Elliott Coues and 
 A.P. Sinnett (via Maude Travers) and bogus Mahatma communications 
 emanating from Subba Row, don't you think HPB would have stopped and 
 wondered about this Julia's quotation of the Adept letter IF she 
 knew nothing about it???
 
 And during the next 12 or so months in 3 other PATH articles Julia 
 quotes even more from the Adept's letter/manuscript.
 
 Daniel
 http://hpb.cc
 
 
     
                       

 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Everyone is raving about the  all-new Yahoo! Mail.

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