Theos-Talk Archives (September 2007 Message tt00028)

Sveinn Freyr 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 Sveinn Freyr's thinking on WHY this 
letter "has done much harm".

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.

Sveinn Freyr states that it was NOT written by an adept, the Master 
KH. 

I see no good reason for coming to this conclusion made by Sveinn 
Freyr.

Consider the following.

In ANOTHER letter NO. 93B (4th chrono ed.) Master KH refers to these
VERY NOTES that Sveinn Freyr rejects:

-----------------------------------------------------
5) It certainly does, and I have touched upon the subject long ago.
In my notes on Mr. Hume's MSS., "On God" -- that he kindly adds to
our Philosophy, something the latter had never contemplated before --
the subject is mentioned abundantly. Has he refused you a look into
it? For you -- I may enlarge my explanations, but not before you
have read what I say of the origin of good and evil on those
margins. Quite enough was said by me for our present purposes.
Strangely enough I found a European author -- the greatest
materialist of his times, Baron d'Holbach -- whose views coincide
entirely with the views of our philosophy. When reading his Essais
sur la Nature, I might have imagined I had our book of Kiu-ti before
me. As a matter of course and of temperament our Universal Pundit
will try to catch at those views and pull every argument to pieces.
So far he only threatens me to alter his Preface and not to publish
the philosophy under his own name. Cuneus cuneum, tradit: I begged
him not to publish his essays at all.
------------------------------------------------------------

Notice KH's words: "...that he kindly adds to our Philosophy...."

Compare the subject matter mentioned in this letter with the subject
matter of Letter No. 88.

So I ask:

Is this letter 93B ALSO not from the Master KH???

Moving on.

Here is what Master KH wrote in yet ANOTHER letter:

--------------------------------------------------------
I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by
Mr. H[ume]. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?)
cosmogony and glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had
to cross out nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not
believe in God because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is
preposterously ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have
H.P.B. or Djual Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our
sacred philosophy to be so disfigured. He says that people will not
accept the whole truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that
there may be a 'loving Father and creator of all in heaven' our
philosophy will be rejected a priori. In such a case the less such
idiots hear of our doctrines the better for both. If they do not
want the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are welcome.
But never will they find us -- (at any rate) -- compromising with,
and pandering to public prejudices.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The above extract shows that the Master is referring to the same
subject matter of Letter NO. 88.

So I ask:

Is this letter ALSO not from the Master KH???

And ALSO consider Letter No. 90 in the Chrono. Ed.

Again the subject matter in Letter No. 90 is much the same as in
Letter NO. 88.

So I ask:

Is this letter ALSO not from the Master KH???

And once again COMPARE the contents of Letter NO. 88 and the other
letters I've quoted from with THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL elucidation
by KH to Sinnett:

----------------------------------------------------------
....And thus according to Mr. Massey's philosophical conclusion we
have no God? He is right -- since he applies the name to an extra-
cosmic anomaly, and that we, knowing nothing of the latter, find --
each man his God -- within himself in his own personal, and at the
same time, -- impersonal Avalokiteswara.....
---------------------------------------------------------

Notice the words: "...He is right --- since he applies the name to
an extra-cosmic anomaly...."

So I ask:

Is this letter ALSO not from the Master KH???

What is Avalokiteswara?

In yet ANOTHER letter, Master KH elucidates the term:

-------------------------------------------------------
...Avalokita Isvar literally interpreted means "the Lord that is
seen." "Iswara" implying moreover, rather the adjective than the
noun, lordly, self-existent lordliness, not Lord. It is, when
correctly interpreted, in one sense "the divine Self perceived or
seen by Self," the Atman or seventh principle ridded of its mayavic
distinction from its Universal Source -- which becomes the object of
perception for, and by the individuality centred in Buddhi, the
sixth principle, -- something that happens only in the highest state
of Samadhi. This is applying it to the microcosm. In the other sense
Avalokitesvara implies the seventh Universal Principle, as the
object perceived by the Universal Buddhi "Mind" or Intelligence
which is the synthetic aggregation of all the Dhyan Chohans, as of
all other intelligences whether great or small, that ever were, are,
or will be....

...Avalokitesvara is both the unmanifested Father and the manifested
Son, the latter proceeding from, and identical with, the other; --
namely, the Parabrahm and Jivatman, the Universal and the
individualized seventh Principle, -- the Passive and the Active, the
latter the Word, Logos, the Verb....
-------------------------------------------------------------

Notice the reference to Atman....and now compare these extracts
about Avalokitesvara with the following extracts from Letter No. 88.

I will suggest that part of the key to a TRUE understanding what the 
Master writes in Letter No. 88 is to be found in these choice 
extracts from that very letter that Sveinn Freyr rejects:

----------------------------------------------------
...If people are willing to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE
immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus
keep to one more gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say
with Spinoza that there is not and that we cannot conceive any other
substance than God; or as that famous and unfortunate philosopher
says in his fourteenth proposition, "practer Deum neque dari neque
concepi potest substantia" -- and thus become Pantheists....

. . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life
is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And
no true philosophically brained Adwaitee will ever call himself an
agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every
respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the
microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no
creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on
it and become agnostics.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Much could be added to the above quotes from H.P.B.'s THE SECRET
DOCTRINE.

I would suggest that the underlying theme is CONSISTENT....FROM 
LETTER TO LETTER, from extract to extract....

Each quote, each extract from the different letters fit together like 
jig saw puzzle pieces to show the whole picture.

In other words, there is similarity/identity of key ideas and themes 
in the different letters cited above.

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.

If one rejects Letter No. 88 as Sveinn Freyr does, then why not ALSO 
reject the other letters quoted above????

This is the question that has not been answered......

Daniel
http://hpb.cc