Theos-Talk Archives (September 2007 Message tt00025)

Statements by DK on
The Secret Doctrine and The Mahatma Letters

In 1997 you (Andrew Stinson) wrote:

> DK makes it plain in his dictations to AAB that it was *HE* who
> dictacted the largest portions of the Secred Doctrine. It would
> have been his first project, perhaps, as a Full Adept. Nevermind
> that most folks believe it was DK's superiors (KH and M) who
> dictated the SD - DK also states that much of the Mahatma Letters
> is HPB's *own* work and not actual dictation from her Masters.
> Here I do not mean to discredit them, though to some it may
> appear that I am doing so. I revere HPB even higher than AAB in
> many respects.

Andrew, of course, you are entitled to your opinions as they
may be reflected in the excerpt from your post above. It seems
that you believe in HPB's bonafides and actually believe in the
existence of M., K.H. and DK. Yet it is somewhat suprising to
me that instead of believing what HPB, KH and M wrote in the
1880s, you are willing to set their statements aside and believe
what Alice Bailey is writing some 30 years after HPB's death.

There are Mahatma Letters as well as HPB's own statements that
indicate that M., K.H and another adept had the most to do with
the production of the Secret Doctrine. D.K. may have helped in
some way, but the primary source documents from HPB's own time
clearly contradict your statement that "DK. . .dictacted the
largest portions of the Secred Doctrine."

Maybe they were mistaken or lying, you may reply. But if that is
a possibility, why not the possibility that the "entity"
communicating through Bailey might also be lying or was mistaken?
Or possibly all of these "entities" as well as Blavatsky and
Bailey were lying or somehow "deluded".

You write that "DK also states that much of the Mahatma Letters
is HPB's *own* work and not actual dictation from her Masters."
Well, are you open to the possibility that "much of DK's supposed
writings through Bailey is Bailey's *own* work and not actual
dictation from DK"?

As to the question of whether HPB " wrote" the Mahatma Letters or
not, you might want to consult Vernon Harrison's book *HP
Blavatsky and the SPR*. As an expert documents examiner, Dr.
Harrison's opinion is as follows: ". . .I find no evidence that
the Mahatma Letters were written by Madame Blavatsky in a
disguised form of her *ordinary writing* made for fraudulent
purposes. . . ." (p.x) Asterisks added. Another "handwriting
expert" (Dr. Paul Kirk) gave his opinion that Blavatsky did not
write certain KH letters as reproduced in the plates attached to
Hodgson's 1885 report on Blavatsky. Kirk didn't even know that
he was giving an opinion on Blavatsky and Koot Hoomi. The
specimens of handwriting were given to Kirk without Blavatsky's
and Koot Hoomi's names being given. See Victor Endersby's HALL
OF MAGIC MIRRORS, etc. The Hare Brothers in their book WHO WROTE
THE MAHATMA LETTERS? (published in the 1930s) contended that HPB
wrote the Mahatma Letters but read in conjunction with their work
the detailed analysis of the Hares' statements by Dr. H.N.
Stokes in his OE LIBRARY CRITIC. (1930s)

Of course, you may say that Dr. Harrison, Dr. Kirk and Dr.
Stokes were all wrong. But are you also willing to concede that
D.K. (via Alice Bailey) was possibly wrong on this issue?
Harrison, Kirk and Stokes give pages of detailed reasoning for
their conclusions. Where are DK's detailed reasoning for his
assertion?

You also say: " I revere HPB even higher than AAB in many
respects." Yet from your own post, you seem inclined to believe
AAB over HPB. Certainly, it might be wise to be skeptical of
HPB's statements but why not apply that same standard to Bailey
and her statements?

> It is plainly stated, though I forget the exact source, except
> that I *think* it is reliable, that when HPB was in Tibet
> (something I have stopped even questioning, such is my confidence
> and TRUST in her OWN words), one of the youngest disciples to sit
> with her learning from the Mahatmas was a 14 year-old Arhat.

It would be interesting to know the source for this statement.

You speak of your "confidence and TRUST in her [HPB's] OWN words"
[about Tibet?] yet you seem quite willing to disbelieve HPB's OWN
words about who helped her write the Secret Doctrine. Why?

Certainly, you have the right to believe as you see fit.
Certainly be skeptical of Blavatsky's claims and statements but
why not be equally skeptical of what Bailey claims. As I see it
historically, Bailey's claims are dependent on Blavatsky's.
Blavatsky's claims are not dependent on Bailey's. If Blavatsky
can be shown to be a fraud "pure and simple" as A. Bharati
phrases it, Bailey's claims are of a simliar cloth. But if
Blavatsky's claims are legit, there is no builtin guarantee that
Bailey's claims are also legit.

Food for thought....

Daniel
http://hpb.cc