Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00445)

Probably there is no final word on this issue: how authentic is the 
work of HPB. Perhaps the final answer to the question lies in the 
heart of evey reader. Does this work speak to you or does it not? If 
so, it is pure gold. If not, search elsewhere. But it seems somehow 
unnecessary to accuse HPB of misdeeds when the very process by which 
she attained her information is a mystery that few have plumbed, the 
more obviously because of the misinterpretations that abound. If the 
work does not inspire the student, is it not possible that it might 
have a very different effect on another student? Therefore why impute 
negativity? We never know when we ourselves will find ourselves in 
the middle of a reevaluation of even the seemingly most obvious and 
simple concept. That's with life is, after all, constant change. Why 
not be respectful of that which inspires others, even if it does not 
inspire us? Isn't that what we would want others to do?

Adelasie

On 16 Oct 2008 at 21:06, Anand wrote:

> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "adelasie" <adelasie@...> wrote:
> >
> > Can you prove this or is it just your understanding of a subject 
> that
> > is highly difficult to understand?
> >
> Blavatsky herself has written that letters are not verbatim, they are
> not written by Master's hand. So, what I have written is, I think,
> proven by Blavatsky's own writing.
> There are my own other reasons to arrive at conclusions, but as my
> statements can be proved by well documented facts, I am not writing
> those other reasons.
> 
> Best
> Anand Gholap
> 
> > On 16 Oct 2008 at 19:47, Anand wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Mahatma Letters were not written verbatim. They are HPB's writing 
> of
> > > what she understand from Masters' thoughts.
> > > But there is real problem here. Blavatsky materialized her own 
> words
> > > in the handwriting of the Masters, signed them with Masters' 
> names and
> > > then told that they were Mahatma letters. In today's world this 
> would
> > > be called as plain forgery.
> > > It is like X writing something, imitating Y's handwriting, and 
> signing
> > > it as Y.
> > > This is actually an offense.
> > > Best
> > > Anand Gholap
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>