Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00417)

You asked about Master Koot Hoomi's ethics. 
I think Masters gave certain ideas to Blavatsky telepathically. But
they were not always understood by Blavatsky accurately because of her
own inner problems. As I said earlier, she sometimes partially
misunderstood or fully misunderstood Masters' ideas. Then Blavatsky
put in words what SHE understood as Masters' thoughts and materialized
them as letters from the Masters. It appears that Masters allowed
inaccurate production of letters. 
I don't think Masters deceived. They just allowed Blavatsky and
Sinnett understand and write what HPB and Sinnett could. Perhaps in
those circumstances inaccuracy was inevitable because of the problems
in their agents Blavatsky and Sinnett. 
Masters understood limitations of HPB and APS and let them write.
Perhaps Masters' position was this "this is what best I can get from
these individuals (HPB and APS) in my project for humanity. For the
time being it might serve the purpose, and so I will let them write that"
As Mahatma Letters were not exactly letters from the Masters, in my
opinion, I don't worry too much about contents and of so called letter
to Mr. Leadbeater. Leadbeater does not have his position in the TS
because of that letter. There are large number of students of
Theosophy who are ignorant about Mahatma Letters. They don't give
importance to Besant and CWL because Mahatmas sent them letters.

Best
Anand Gholap





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> In the article by H.P. Blavatsky that I quoted several days ago,
> she writes:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> We have been asked by a correspondent why he should not "be free to
> suspect some of the so-called 'precipitated' [Mahatma] letters [from
> Koot Hoomi and Morya] 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.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I invite the attentive reader to consider one paragraph of
> HPB's reply to the above. She writes:
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 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 [that is, Master Koot Hoomi] who would tolerate one
> single fraudulent line in his name, would wink at an unlimited
> repetition of the deception....
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> caps added.
> 
> Quoted from:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/46379
> 
> Now let us consider this quote in the present context of what Anand
> has been saying about the Mahatma letters.
> 
> On the one hand, Anand tells us that he is indeed a believer in the
> existence of the Master Koot Hoomi. And yet Anand apparently is
> willing to believe that H.P. Blavatsky, the messenger of Master Koot
> Hoomi to the public, actually faked letters from Master Koot Hoomi
> and apparently this "faking" occurred over a period of years.
> 
> But if the Master KH is really an adept or Master, then would he not
> have been aware that Madame Blavatsky was palming off fake letters
> using his name???
> 
> And would not the Master KH know that Mr. Sinnett is being deceived
> by these fake letters and would not the Master know that Sinnett is
> even publishing some of these fake letters in ESOTERIC BUDDHISM
> (1883)???
> 
> Surely the Master KH would be aware that these "faked" letters being
> published in ESOTERIC BUDDHISM would deceive and mislead hundreds if
> not thousands of readers.
> 
> What kind of "Master" would allow such things to occur???
> 
> What kind of ethics, morality and even "common honesty" does the
> Master Koot Hoomi have if such are the "facts" as suggested by
> Anand?????
> 
> And consider one more point.
> 
> In 1884 with all this supposed faking and deceiving being done by
> HPB, does Anand really believe that the Master KH would still use
> H.P. Blavatsky to send genuine letters to C.W. Leadbeater?
> 
> If HPB had already been deceiving A.P. Sinnett over several years in
> to believing that certain letters were from the Master when actually
> they were not, why should we believe that in 1884 the real KH sent
> the following letter through HPB to C.W. Leadbeater???
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Since your intuition led you in the right direction and made you
> understand that it was my desire you should go to Adyar immediately -
> I may say more. The sooner you go the better. Do not lose one day
> more than you can help. Sail on the 5th if possible. Join Upasika at
> Alexandria. Let no one know you are going and may the blessing of our
> Lord, and my poor blessing shield you from every evil in your new
> life. Greeting to you my new chela.
> 
> K. H.
> 
> Show my notes to no one.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> If HPB could deceive Sinnett with fake Mahatma letters, why would she
> not ALSO deceive Mr. Leadbeater?????
> 
> So Anand, what about Master Koot Hoomi's ethics?
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>