Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00108)

Jake, you write:

=======================================
Compilation not a "letter"

Carlos and I both criticized dan
calling his "concentration-letter" a
bonafide letter, because all it is, is
his own compilation from different places.
He says other accepted teacher letters
aren't real letters, because we don't
have the originals, or they were notes
on another letter - but all his disclaiming
examples are entire letters in one piece, origin-
ally, or copies of letters, they are not pulled
in ands pieced together from all over.
They all exist originally as one unit or
manuscript referred to (with slight
divergences in copies.) His argument
is no argument at all, but just another
bit of cleverness to create a fog - again!
================================================

I must admit that one or two of your points above
I don't fully understand.

Then I am completely puzzled by what you write here:

"He [Dan] says other accepted teacher letters aren't real letters, 
because we don't have the originals, or they were notes on another 
letter...."

Where did I say that????

Here is what I did write:

===========================================================
In my various postings, I have ALSO called this "letter" a document,
or a manuscript.

So Jake if you want to quibble and call it something else other than
a letter, okay with me!

But if in fact you are quibbling about whether "letter" is the
appropriate term to use, then see Dr. Hugh Shearman's similar [???]
attempt to do the same in regards to "Letter" 10 (in the first 3
editions of the Mahatma Letters).
===========================================================

It is my view that Dr. Shearman was quibbling about Letter 10 by 
saying it isn't really a letter but a series of notes.

As I once wrote to Virginia Hanson, the MAIN issue concerning 
Mahatma Letter #10 is:

did Master KH write or compose or send the text whether we call it a 
letter, notes, a collation, a text, a commentary, or something 
else....blah blah blah???

So when Jake writes:

"He [Dan] says other accepted teacher letters aren't real letters, 
because we don't have the originals...."  etc etc.

my reply is:  No, I didn't say that; in fact, I would say the 
opposite.

We have in fact some "real" Mahatma Letters although we don't have 
have the originals of those letters but merely copies made by some 
other person.  I gave examples in my posting listed above.

And finally, if you want to call it a compilation, that is fine too.

But see what I actually wrote in regards to this whole subject at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/36299 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/36291

Daniel
http://hpb.cc