Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00009)

Anand,

I am beginning to think that you do not really realize what doors you 
are opening when you make certain statements and admissions.

Consider what you write in your latest posting:
------------------------------------------------------------
> I did not say that Masters don't exist. I think they do exist. But
> there is possibility that Blavatsky materialized letters which were
> not always containing Masters' thoughts. There are too many problems
> in Blavatsky's writing and work in general. Sometimes she might have
> faked letters to make others believe in the existence of Masters.
> Blavatsky needed co-operation of other people and so to impress them
> she did some miracles like production of letters from nowhere, cup
etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Not let us take two of these statements and think about the 
implications of what you are suggesting:

-------------------------------------------------------------
[1]...there is possibility that Blavatsky materialized letters which 
were NOT always containing Masters' thoughts....[2] Sometimes she 
might have faked letters TO MAKE OTHERS BELIEVE in the existence of 
Masters....
-------------------------------------------------------------

CAPS ADDED.

But if SOME of the letters were NOT "containing Masters' thoughts" 
then there is another possibility that NONE of the letters contained 
Masters' thoughts for the simple reason that the Masters didn't exist.
Isn't it possible that the letters ONLY contain HPB's thoughts for 
the simple reason that there were no Masters?

Even you admit:

HPB faked letters to MAKE OTHERS BELIEVE .... 

To believe in what?   THE EXISTENCE OF THE MASTERS!!!

So isn't it possible HPB made up the Masters....period.   They didn't 
exist....period.  

And IN ORDER TO MAKE OTHERS BELIEVE in the existence of the 
Masters....she FAKED all of the letters.  None of the letters 
contained "Masters' thought".  

And you have already brought up for the "true researcher" to 
seriously consider that the appearances of the Masters --- even when 
several people testify that the Master visited them in his physical 
body --- could have been "faked" too.  That is, HPB using her psychic 
powers created a "form" of a Master and projected this "thought form" 
and MADE PEOPLE BELIEVE that they had been visisted by a Master.

If she could fake some letters and some appearances, then she could 
have faked ALL OF THE LETTERS AND ALL THE APPEARANCES.  

If you NOW say you still believe in the Masters' existence and you 
still believe some of the letters might have contained some of the 
thoughts of the Masters, then tell us how you can tell which 
appearances were faked and which appearances were NOT faked, and 
which letters were faked and which letters were NOT faked, and what 
passages in letters contain "Masters' thoughts" and which passages do 
NOT contain "Masters' thought".

For if you say you can, for example, tell that something is NOT 
Master's thoughts, then I would love to understand how you know or 
think you know what the Master's thoughts really are.  For if you say 
this, then surely this means you have SOME WAY in which you can know 
what the Master's REAL THOUGHTS are instead of the FAKED THOUGHTS you 
suggest HPB gave out in some or many of these letters.

Let me ask you again:

Anand, can you tell us which accounts by the witnesses contain FAKED 
appearances and which accounts involve GENUINE appearances???

And what criteria, reasoning, evidence, etc. are you using to come to 
these conclusions?

Can you tell us which Mahatma letters contain FAKED passages NOT 
containing the Masters' thoughts and which letters contain GENUINE 
passages containing Masters' thoughts?

And again what criteria, reasoning, evidence, etc. are you using to 
come to these conclusions?

Anand, I am not asking for you to spend even 5 hours writing up 
dozens of examples.  I am simply asking you to cite some SPECIFIC 
appearances and some SPECIFIC letters so that all true reseachers 
here at Theos-Talk can see if they understand your own thinking, 
reasoning, etc. on this matter.

Anand, plese help all of us gain some insight into what you are 
thinking or NOT thinking.

Maybe you know what you are talking about but maybe you don't.  I 
simply would like to know --- and all those other true researchers I 
am  sure would like to know --- some SPECIFIC AND CONCRETE EXAMPLES.

Also I hope you will answer my posting which contained my first 
invitation:

"Invitation to Anand to give us the Evidence of the Masters"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/47109

Daniel
http://hpb.cc