Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00266)

H. P. Blavatsky Herself Answers the Substance
of Anand's Charge of Fake Letters from the Masters..

In October 1888, Madame Blavatsky wrote on this very subject which
Anand now brings up in 2008:

--------------------------------------------------
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 [Master Koot Hoomi] 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 [Mahatma] letters in 
the "Occult  World," "Esoteric Buddhism," [by A.P. Sinnett] etc., 
etc., may be, and there is no  reason why they should not be in such 
a case - frauds, "clever  impostures," and "forgeries," . . . .
--------------------------------------------------
caps added

Quoted from:
LUCIFER, October, 1888
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/path/v09n03p84_lodges-of-magic.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc