Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00110)

If you are talking about the real letter from the Maha-Chohan, you 
are right. But the fact is that Oliviera very much likes the phoney 
ones, and has quoted them several times.

Chohan is Indian "slang", and a very old one to, but the origin of 
the word is Tibetan, and hence both M. and K.H. was/are Indian 
Hindus, it is nothing strange about the fact that they was/are using 
it. 

Even if M. sometime was called a Chohan, the real author of the real 
letter could actually have been the Master S.B. But that is my 
private speculation. 

I have one question to you, Konstantin. How, on earth, could you 
believed that my comments was about Pedro's "god-article"? I said 
already in the title which articles it was about, and after that al 
the quotations and referrals to page numbers. 

Carl

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Konstantin Zaitzev" 
<kay_ziatz@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Carl,
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Carl Ek wrote:
> 
> > There is more then one letter that are said to come from the 
Maha-
> > Chohan. The one that Pedro and Linda likes (about that god has a 
> > personality), is very clear fake (author Ernest Wood or 
Leadbeater 
> 
> I know only one letter, that which he quoted, and I've studied it 
> very thoroughly, as I corrected its translation into the Russian. 
I 
> also took part in a seminar (lead by Mary Anderson, our 
international 
> secretary) where this letter was studied, so I am sure that there 
is 
> nothing common with concept of personal god in this letter.
> 
> The author speaks much in favour of Buddhism and somewhat 
despisedly 
> about Christianity, - at least, about its version spread by the 
> preachers.
> 
> Another weak point of the article is the treatment the term Maha-
> chohan. Yes, it really means "Big Boss", but it was still 
impossible 
> to trace tibetan roots of the word "chohan". It is unknown to the 
> most Tibetans, and cannot be found in the dictionaries. Maybe it a 
> part of a slang of early theosophists or had or is a dialectism of 
> the Tibetan-Indian border. Moreover, the Tibetans not apt to 
combine 
> tibetan and sanskrit words; they tend to translate into tibetan 
even 
> the names of the buddhas, so the use of a sanskrit word which just 
> means "big" seems strange. I suspect that "chohan" comes from the 
> tibetan "chos" - dharma, but I'm not sure. They already have a 
term 
> for a keeper or protector of Dharma which sounds somewhat 
> like "choije".
> 
> > My article was not I reply on Pedro's God-article, but on 
another 
> > one, called "Which Theosophy?".
> 
> Sorry, here I was mistaken.
>