Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00301)

Hi Sufilight,

Yes "could mean" would be better.

Anyway, BELOW is what H.P. Blavatsky says during the same time-period 
of Aug.-Oct 1888 [as the KH letter to Olcott] about the letters from 
the her Masters.

HPB writes in an article in LUCIFER:

--------------------------------------------------
We have been asked by a correspondent why he should not "be free to
suspect some of the so-called 'precipitated' letters as being
forgeries," giving as his reason for it that while some of them bear
the stamp of (to him) undeniable genuineness, others seem from their
contents and style, to be imitations. This is equivalent to saying
that he has such an unerring spiritual insight as to be able to
detect the false from the true, though he has never met a Master,
nor been given any key by which to test his alleged communications.
The inevitable consequence of applying his untrained judgment in
such cases, would be to make him as likely as not to declare false
what was genuine, and genuine what was false. Thus what criterion
has any one to decide between one "precipitated" letter, or another
such letter? Who except their authors, or those whom they employ as
their amanuenses (the chelas and disciples), can tell? For it is
hardly one out of a hundred "occult" letters that is ever written by
the hand of the Master, in whose name and on whose behalf they are
sent, as the Masters have neither need nor leisure to write them;
and that when a Master says, "I wrote that letter," it means only
that every word in it was dictated by him and impressed under his
direct supervision. Generally they make their chela, whether near or
far away, write (or precipitate) them, by impressing upon his mind
the ideas they wish expressed, and if necessary aiding him in the
picture-printing process of precipitation. It depends entirely upon
the chela's state of development, how accurately the ideas may be
transmitted and the writing-model imitated. 

Thus the non-adept recipient is left in the dilemma of uncertainty, 
whether, if one letter is false, all may not be; for, as far as 
intrinsic evidence goes, all come from the same source, and all are 
brought by the same mysterious means. But there is another, and a far 
worse condition implied. For all that the recipient of "occult" 
letters can possibly know, and on the simple grounds of probability 
and common honesty, the unseen correspondent who would tolerate one 
single fraudulent line in his name, would wink at an unlimited 
repetition of the deception. And this leads directly to the 
following. All the so- called occult letters being supported by 
identical proofs, they have all to stand or fall together. If one is 
to be doubted, then all have, and the series of letters in 
the "Occult World," "Esoteric Buddhism," etc., etc., may be, and 
there is no reason why they should not be in such a case-
frauds, "clever impostures," and "forgeries," . . . . 
--------------------------------------------------
Quoted from: 
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/path/v09n03p84_lodges-of-magic.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Daniel and all
> 
> "would mean"?
> 
> How so? Is not rather "could mean"?
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: danielhcaldwell 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 5:32 PM
>   Subject: Theos-World To Morten Sufilight: Through HPB's Agency
> 
> 
>   Hi Sufilight,
> 
>   Well, below is one graphic example of what "through her
>   agency" would mean:
> 
>   The testimony is that of C.W. Leadbeater and relates to
>   the time period October 1884. He writes:
> 
>   ----------------------------------------------------
>   ...I knew of no way to send this message to the Master [Koot 
Hoomi] 
>   but to take it to Madame Blavatsky, and as she was to leave 
England 
>   on the following day for India, I hastened up to London to see 
her.
> 
>   It was with difficulty that I induced her to read the letter, as 
she 
>   said very decidedly that such communications were intended only 
for 
>   the recipient. I was obliged to insist, however, and at last she 
read 
>   it and asked me what I wished to say in reply. I answered to the 
>   above effect, and asked her how this information could be 
conveyed to 
>   the Master. She replied that He knew it already, referring of 
course 
>   to the exceedingly close relation in which she stood with Him, so 
>   that whatever was within her consciousness was also within His 
when 
>   He wished it.
> 
>   She then told me to wait by her, and not to leave her on any 
account. 
>   She adhered absolutely to this condition, even making me 
accompany 
>   her into her bedroom when she went to put on her hat and, when a 
cab 
>   was required, declining to allow me to leave the room and go to 
the 
>   door to whistle for it. I could not at all understand the purpose 
of 
>   this at the time, but afterwards I realized that she wished me to 
be 
>   able to say that she had never been out of my sight for a moment 
>   between the time when she read my letter from the Master and my 
>   receipt of the reply to it. I remember as vividly as if it were 
>   yesterday how I rode with her in that hansom cab, and the bashful 
>   embarrassment that I felt, caused partly by the honour of doing 
so, 
>   and partly by my fear that I must be inconveniencing her 
horribly, 
>   for I was crushed side ways into a tiny corner of the seat, while 
her 
>   huge bulk weighed down her side of the vehicle, so that the 
springs 
>   were grinding all through the journey. Mr. and Mrs. Cooper-Oakley 
>   were to accompany her on the voyage to India, and it was to their 
>   house that I went with her very late that night-in fact, I 
believe it 
>   was after mid-night, so I really ought to say very early the next 
>   morning."
> 
>   ...Even at that hour a number of devoted friends were gathered in 
>   Mrs. Oakley's drawing-room to say farewell to Madame Blavatsky, 
who 
>   seated herself in an easy-chair by the fireside. She was talking 
>   brilliantly to those who were present, and rolling one of her 
eternal 
>   cigarettes, when suddenly her right hand was jerked out towards 
the 
>   fire in a very peculiar fashion, and lay palm upwards. She looked 
>   down at it in surprise, as I did myself, for I was standing close 
to 
>   her, leaning with an elbow on the mantel-piece: and several of us 
saw 
>   quite clearly a sort of whitish mist form in the palm of her hand 
and 
>   then condense into a piece of folded paper, which she at once 
handed 
>   to me, saying: "There is your answer." Every one in the room 
crowded 
>   round, of course, but she sent me away outside to read it, saying 
>   that I must not let anyone see its contents.
>   ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   Daniel
>   http://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>