Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00297)

Dear Daniel and all

My views are:

Well the question is what the term "through her agency" covers?
Does it imply, that some letters were written, but not by H. P. Blavatsky, but with her knowledge? Or is my english not adequate?

I would say that the genuinity af the Mahatma Letters only rest upon the individuals ability to confirm whether they are genuine. And it is more important, what was written in the letters, than whether they were genuine or not.

Each letter is to the theosophical seeker at DESIGN. Each DESIGN will have a certain impact on its reader. This impact is measured by the Masters and initiates. After a while a new DESIGN or letter can be created.

_________

My ability to read in the Akasha tells me, that most of what came through by Mary was either false or very distorted. But a few informations came through as far as I can tell. When and what is difficult for me to distinguish clearly.
But I know very well that by sense sometimes play tricks upon me, so all I say is with a perhaps or perhaps not.

True Knowledge is scares these days on this planet. :-)


M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: danielhcaldwell 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 4:46 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: To Anand Gholap: Mr. Sinnett & his Communications with KH Part 1 ...


  Hello M. Sufilight,

  Well, tell us what you think about this August 1888 letter from
  Master K.H. to Colonel Olcott.

  Since Anand appears not too willing to answer the questions posed, I 
  ask you for your input.

  Do you accept what the Master KH says in this letter to Olcott?

  I give the letter extract again:

  "Since 1885 I have not written, nor caused to be written save thro'
  her [H.P. Blavatsky's] agency, direct or remote, a letter or line to 
  anybody in Europe or America, nor communicated orally with, or thro'
  any third party. Theosophists should learn it. You will understand
  later the SIGNIFICANCE of this declaration so keep it in mind." 

  See this letter as it was published in 1888 in the pages of Mme. 
  Blavatsky's LUCIFER, p. 146:

  http://tinyurl.com/4em9j5

  If you accept this statement in the letter from KH then 
  would you not conclude that the oral communications
  Sinnett believed he had been receiving during 1886, 1887 and 1888
  from "KH" through Mary are not from the real Master Koot Hoomi???

  Looking forward to your thoughts.

  Daniel
  http://hpb.cc

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
  theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear Anand, Daniel and others,
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > Not to muddy the waters too much.
  > But we have to be more clear about which Mahatma Letters were fake 
  ones, and which were written by Chelas, and by Blavatsky her self, 
  and which one were by the Masters themselves.
  > 
  > To use each Mahatma Letter as 100% genuine is going a bit too far 
  is it not?
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: danielhcaldwell 
  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 7:10 AM
  > Subject: Theos-World To Anand Gholap: Mr. Sinnett & his 
  Communications with KH Part 1 ...
  > 
  > 
  > Anand,
  > 
  > I am going to try to see where the two of us agree and disagree.
  > 
  > I assume that both of us believe in the existence of the Master 
  Koot
  > Hoomi. Am I right?
  > 
  > But it would appear that our beliefs differ significantly in many 
  > other aspects concerning Theosophy.
  > 
  > Therefore this posting is Part 1 of a series of postings in which 
  I 
  > am going to try to ascertain where the two of us agree and 
  disagree 
  > and more importantly I will try to determine what our thinking
  > and reasoning on these issues are.
  > 
  > Let me therefore start off with Mr. Sinnett's description of how 
  he
  > was introduced to the Master Koot Hoomi.
  > 
  > He writes:
  > 
  > --------------------------------------------------
  > With the arrival of the Founders [H.P. Blavatsky and Henry S. 
  Olcott]
  > in India the real development of the [Theosophical] Society may be
  > regarded as beginning. The situation at the time was briefly as
  > follows: -
  > 
  > Madame Blavatsky is the central figure to be considered. She was 
  the
  > one person who knew of her own knowledge, that The Brothers, - as 
  she
  > called them in those days - were Beings, human in aspect, of flesh
  > and blood, for she had been for a time in company with two of 
  them in
  > Tibet. She knew they had dazzling powers in dealing with the 
  affairs
  > of the world. She herself had faculties of a super-physical order
  > that kept her in touch with them wherever she might be. She knew 
  she
  > had a mission to fulfil which had for the moment assumed the 
  shape of
  > the Theosophical Society. She must have been conscious of 
  possessing
  > wonderful powers the exercise of which was under restriction, to
  > which she submitted in devotion to the great Brother whom she
  > regarded as her own Master, in a pre-eminent degree. .[Early Days 
  of
  > Theosophy, page 17]
  > 
  > The events attending the presence of Madame Blavatsky at Simla [in
  > September and October 1880] are described for the most part in my
  > book The Occult World.. The manifestations of occult power then
  > freely given [by and through Madame Blavatsky] had a profound 
  effect
  > on my own mind. I felt that those who exhibited such marvelous 
  power
  > over natural forces unfamiliar to physical science must possess
  > knowledge to correspond. .I wished I could get into communication
  > with one of the Brothers [Masters] she talked about..Conversation
  > showed that she thought this might not be impossible, and I wrote 
  a
  > letter addressed to A Brother and gave it to Madame Blavatsky for
  > transmission. In due course I received a reply [from Master Koot
  > Hoomi], and this was the first of a long series of letters from 
  the
  > Masters K. H. and M. which led to the preparation of The Occult 
  World
  > [published June 1881] and afterwards to Esoteric Buddhism 
  [published
  > June 1883].. [Early Days of Theosophy, page 27]
  > --------------------------------------------------------
  > 
  > Anand, the FIRST letter from Master KH received by Mr. Sinnett in
  > Simla, India around the middle of October 1880 can be found on the
  > WWW at:
  > 
  > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-1.htm
  > 
  > And as far as I can ascertain, the LAST long letter from Master KH
  > received by Mr. Sinnett in London soon after April 7, 1885 can be
  > found online at:
  > 
  > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-65.htm
  > 
  > Notice what Master KH says at the end of this 1885 letter:
  > 
  > "Once more, accept my blessing and parting greeting if they have 
  to
  > be my last."
  > 
  > Now it is important to point out here that Mr. Sinnett was NOT 
  able
  > to communicate directly with Mahatma K.H. He himself --- unlike 
  H.P.
  > Blavatsky --- had no "faculties of a super-physical order" by 
  which
  > he could communicate directly with the Master.
  > 
  > Therefore, Mr. Sinnett communicated with the Master KH via
  > correspondence from October 1880 to April 1885. [I will ignore in
  > this part 1 the Holloway Affair.]
  > 
  > After this correspondence ceased in 1885, Mr. Sinnett found 
  himself
  > no longer in communication whatsoever with the Master.
  > 
  > Although I am not aware of any text in which Mr. Sinnett expresses
  > his state of mind and his thoughts about no longer having a means 
  to
  > communicate with the Master, I would imagine that he was 
  not "happy"
  > with this state of affairs. And as far as I know, he never in 1885
  > admitted at least to the public that his communication via letter
  > with the Master had ceased.
  > 
  > But the next year -- 1886 -- , we find him trying to REESTABLISH 
  SOME
  > KIND OF COMMUNICATION with the Master KH.
  > 
  > In "The Autobiography of Alfred Percy Sinnett," he tells us:
  > 
  > "On the 26th of April 1886. . . we went . . . to the Albemarle
  > Club . . . to meet a lady who was . . . desirous of making my
  > acquaintance . . . . . I will give her a fictitious name and call 
  her
  > Mary. . . . shortly afterwards I tried a mesmeric experiment with 
  her
  > (in accordance with her wish) and obtained remarkable results - 
  she
  > went very easily into a trance in which she became unequivocally
  > clairvoyant. . . .I became convinced that she clairvoyantly saw 
  the
  > mountain region in Tibet where the Master K.H. resided. . . . . It
  > became obvious that Mary MIGHT BECOME A LINK between myself and 
  the
  > Master. . . . . Mary came to stay with
  > us . . . in February 1888 and our regular mesmeric sittings were
  > resumed almost every evening, the Master [KH] talking to me 
  THROUGH
  > HER in most cases. In this way I gathered a great deal of
  > miscellaneous occult information. . . . . Mary left us to go to 
  her
  > own home in May 1888 having had mesmeric sitting almost every 
  evening
  > while she was with us, at most of which the Master spoke to me, - 
  or
  > rather dictated to her what he wished to say. She would pass into 
  a
  > higher condition in which she could be in touch with him and be
  > enabled to repeat his words to her in reply to my questions or
  > remarks." pp 33 & 38-39 caps added
  > 
  > Again Anand, Mr. Sinnett's own words show that he himself was NOT
  > able to communicate directly with the Master KH through some
  > telepathic or clairvoyant means.
  > 
  > Instead he "mesmerized" Mary and as a result of this he came to
  > believe that Mary had somehow established communication with the 
  real
  > Master KH.
  > 
  > Now the question comes to my mind: Was Mr. Sinnett actually in
  > communication with the SAME Mahatma Koot Hoomi that he had
  > corresponded with from 1880 to 1885?
  > 
  > Or could he have been in communication via Mary with some 
  imaginary
  > Master created in the subconscious mind of Mary?
  > 
  > Did Sinnett ever even seriously consider this latter possibility?
  > 
  > But it would appear that for whatever reason or reasons, Mr. 
  Sinnett
  > accepted/believed that he had reestablished a link of 
  communication
  > with the REAL Mahatma Koot Hoomi.
  > 
  > That is, he beleived that he was once again in communication with 
  the
  > original Koot Hoomi who had been introduced to him by Madame
  > Blavatsky herself in 1880.
  > 
  > Therefore you can readily imagine his surprise or consternation 
  that
  > he must have experienced sometime in August/September/October 1888
  > when Colonel Henry Olcott who had come to London from India showed
  > Mr. Sinnett the letter from Master Koot Hoomi that Colonel Olcott 
  had
  > received in August 1888 while on board the SS Shannon in the
  > Mediterranean. In this letter, Mahatma Koot Hoomi had told Colonel
  > Olcott:
  > 
  > "Since 1885 I have not written, nor caused to be written save 
  thro'
  > her [H.P. Blavatsky's] agency, direct or remote, a letter or line 
  to
  > anybody in Europe or America, nor communicated orally with, or 
  thro'
  > any third party. Theosophists should learn it. You will understand
  > later the SIGNIFICANCE of this declaration so keep it in mind." 
  caps
  > added.
  > 
  > And in this same KH letter we find this warning to Olcott:
  > 
  > "Prepare, however, to have the authenticity of the present 
  [letter]
  > denied in certain quarters."
  > 
  > So Anand, do you accept what the Master KH says above in this 
  letter 
  > to Olcott?
  > 
  > Anand, if you accept the above statement in the letter from KH 
  then 
  > would you not conclude that the oral communications
  > Sinnett believed he had been receiving during 1886, 1887 and 1888
  > from "KH" through Mary are not from the real Master Koot Hoomi???
  > 
  > Daniel
  > http://hpb.cc
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]