Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00101)

Sveinn,

Thanks for your brief comments below.  

Have I missed out on your posting in which you responded to the points
I placed before readers on Letter No. 88??

Unfortunately, I still have no clear understanding of why you view 
Letter No. 88 as you do.

And in your post of June 5th you commented:

------------------------------------------------------
I have seen your letter and will respond. But it may take days as
I am busy with mundane matters.

This subject, is by my opinion, the most important of all that we deal
with in Spirit oriented philosophy. There is no subject so critically
important for us.
-----------------------------------------------------

NOTICE your last paragraph above and the importance you attach to 
this subject (I assume regarding the contents of Letter No. 88, etc.).

Can I assume that you reject not only Letter No. 88 but the other 
letters of KH that I refer to in my posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/40734

Daniel






--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Sveinn Freyr <Sven04@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel -
> 
> I have tried to formulate my thoughts in words but I can not
> make myself clear on this matter without referring to our existence
> and to the Adept groups in The Monad Wheel.
> 
> English is also a difficult language for this subject.
> 
> Please do not take my comment on letter "No. 88" as criticism
> towards you. I respect you and your work.
> 
> Sincerely
> 
> Sveinn Freyr
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~Your letter:~~~~~~~~
> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:51:44
> 
> Sveinn Freyr,
> 
> You wrote some time ago on Theos-Talk:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------
> This controversial letter "No. 88"? Is by my
> opinion not a letter written by an adept. It is a note scrap
> that should not have been issued and designated
> to master K.H. This scrap note has done much harm.
> -------------------------------------------------
> 
> I am interested to know your thinking on WHY this letter "has done
> much harm".
> 
> Personally I have studied this letter NO. 88 [in the Chronological
> edition of The Mahatma Letters] in great detail and
> have compared it to other RELEVANT letters in the Mahatma Letters as
> well as to what one can find in HPB's THE SECRET DOCTRINE and HPB's
> other writings.
> 
> You state that it was NOT written by an adept, the Master KH. I see
> no good reason for coming to the conclusion you make above.
> 
> What am I not understanding properly or not taking into account??
> ...................     .....................
> 
> Of course, each student and reader will have to determine if Letter
> No. 88 is from an adept or not, but it appears that the subject
> matter is consistent as one goes from one Mahatma Letter to another
> and as one then compares what is said on the same topic for example
> in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> 
> More could be written but I stop here.
> 
> Hope some of this helps.
> 
> Daniel
> <http://hpb.cc>http://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>