Theos-Talk Archives (December 2008 Message tt00205)

The Masters were very clear on this: they needed Blavatsky as go
between for the psychic processes.

Personally I'm not that surprised that they would use different
techniques at different times in history. During Blavatsky's life they
wrote letters - but most of their chelas received messages from them
differently: either clairvoyantly, or simply face to face. 

Isn't that what Leadbeater claimed as well?

But the unique thing was: Sinnett was NOT a chela or regular student
of the masters. The latter chose to communicate with him anyhow,
because he stood a chance of opening up western thought to
possibilities that no one else could make clear like he could. 

Katinka

http://www.allconsidering.com/
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> After Blavatsky's death all people stopped receiving "Mahatma
> Letters". What conclusions we can draw from it? According to
> Blavatsky, Masters don't write letters physically, it is chelas who
> write letters. Masters had many chelas like Subba Rao, Leadbeater,
> Damodar Mavlankar (from my state). Most of these chelas did not write
> letters for Mahatmas. If Masters really wanted to write letters, they
> would have used many other chelas also. Does that mean initiative to
> materialize letters was from Blavatsky, and not from the Masters?
>