Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00304)

Dear Daniel and all

My views are:

Blavatsky said in the below letter quoted by D. Caldwell:
"Who except their authors, or those whom they employ as
their amanuenses (the chelas and disciples), can tell? "


And that was and is exactly min point.
It is the content of the letter and the ability of the receiver to turn it into use for the sake of humanity and something worthwhile.


M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: danielhcaldwell 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 6:43 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: To Morten Sufilight: Through HPB's Agency


  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]
  >



   

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