Re: Why did Blavatsky materialize fake Mahatma Letters?
Oct 31, 2008 02:41 AM
by Anand
I know that in this group and other groups I have not replied all the
questions and messages addressed to me. It is because I have limited
time in which many things are to be done, and so I am writing only on
the topics which I think are important. Sometimes due to lack of time
I am not replying to messages related to important topics also. I am
sorry for not being able to reply all the messages, but I hope members
will understand this situation.
Best
Anand Gholap
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> >
> > Anand,
> >
> > You write:
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > From references brought earlier, certain points become clear about how
> > so called Mahatma Letters came into existence. I am listing them here
> > so that further analysis will have base of those facts.
> > According to Blavatsky
> > 1) Most of the letters were not written by Masters' hands.
> > 2) Letters were not dictated verbatim. That means every word of
> > letters was not chosen by Masters.
> > 3) Letters depended on chela's development and capacity to understand
> > (Mahatma's thoughts).
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Now let us look at what Blavatsky actually wrote and what you even
> > say are "those facts":
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > ...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.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ...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.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you assume that every word is dictated by Masters and chela
> accurately wrote or precipitated them, then whatever may be chela's
> understanding, it will not alter contents of the letter, and letter
> would be perfectly what Masters want to convey. But other statement of
> Blavatsky contradicts this idea saying "It depends entirely upon the
> chela's state of development, how accurately the ideas may be
> transmitted and the writing-model imitated."
> Blavatsky's this statement is admission that Mahatma Letters are not
> entirely reliable. And even if Masters composed every word, they could
> not come accurately always in their letters, as precipitation depended
> on chela.
> "It depends entirely upon the chela's state of development, how
> accurately the ideas may be transmitted and the writing-model
imitated."
> Here we need to note that Blavatsky here tells that IDEAS are
> transmitted. (she did not say words were transmitted) So there is
> contradiction. At one place Blavatsky writes that every WORD was
> dictated and at other places she says IDEAS were transmitted.
> If Masters chose every word and if chela could reproduce them
> accurately, then "the writing-model imitated" will not depend on
> chela's development. But as it does depend on chela's development, it
> is clear that chela could make mistakes in precipitating those letters.
> Also Blavatsky's writing shows that it was chela who precipitated
> letters and Masters did not generally precipitate letters. From other
> writings of occultism we know that many times it can happen that chela
> would take his own thoughts as Master's thoughts, being unable to
> distinguish between his own thoughts and Master's thoughts. And so
> what chela precipitates may be his own thoughts mistaken as thoughts
> of the Masters.
>
> Best
> Anand Gholap
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application