Theos-Talk Archives (August 2009 Message tt00086)

Dear Anand and friends

My views are:

Anand wrote:
"It is possible that Blavatsky wanted Olcott, Sinnett etc. to do what Blavatsky wanted them to do and believe and so Blavatsky materialized letters with the content that suited her purpose. The content of Mahatma Letters was actually Blavatsky's thinking. "

M. Sufilight says:
Are you saying that H. P. Blavatsky produced all Mahatma letters, including those in far away countries where she was not present? And that she materialised herself as the Master Morya and Kuthumi in Lahore, New York and elsewhere while she was several kilometres away? And that the Masters never did anything similar and/or that they do not exist despite numerous winesses claim the opposite?

Perhaps, if it was not for the fact, that some of us know that Morya and Kuthumi are real and not H. P. Blavatsky. And even if we ignore this calimed knowledge such a stance seem quite illogical, because the opposite or a combination herof could just as well be the truth. H. P. Blavatsky was known to be the Masters agent. When she disappeared in 1891 the reason for the Masters producing Mahatma Letters disappeared - Karma and energy follow certain patterns, and most often not a sinister one. In a period of his life A. P. Sinnett in fact distrusted the existence of the Himalayan Masters.

Anand wrote:
"Olcott and Sinnett apparently did not suspect that even if letters were produced miraculously, those miracles were made by Blavatsky and not by Masters!"

M. Sufilight says:
Why should H. S. Olcott have another view?
Oloctt got a turban from Master Morya when he materialised in New York. And later he meet the Masters several times - which he also mentions in interviews and his diary leaves.

A. P. Sinnett's karma was a bit different and was in a part of his life doubting the Himalayan Masters existence.

Anand wrote:
"But this mischief created lot of confusion of ideas among Theosophical students and others because many inconsistent and wrong ideas got attributed to Masters, when they had not written those ideas. "

M. Sufilight says:
No. Not at all. The problem is, that if you tell a small child - by insisting on it - not to put its hand into the fire, it will very often try to do so. The wrong ideas attributed to the Masters were merely due to - assumptions, prejudice, and the oppositions fueling of such bad views. It was not because of what was said about them in H. P. Blavatsky's writings - where she clearly told the readers that masters/adepts were not omnipresent and not omniscient. Only certain Avatars are.




M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:12 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"


    It is possible that Blavatsky wanted Olcott, Sinnett etc. to do what Blavatsky wanted them to do and believe and so Blavatsky materialized letters with the content that suited her purpose. The content of Mahatma Letters was actually Blavatsky's thinking. 
  Olcott and Sinnett apparently did not suspect that even if letters were produced miraculously, those miracles were made by Blavatsky and not by Masters! But this mischief created lot of confusion of ideas among Theosophical students and others because many inconsistent and wrong ideas got attributed to Masters, when they had not written those ideas. 

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "sampsakuukasjarvi" <sampsakuukasjarvi@...> wrote:
  >
  > Morten,
  > 
  > We Theosophists don't have to believe everything what H.P. Blavatsky or any other teacher says. Maybe you are a little too enthuasistic follower of hers and demand that nobody is allowed to criticize her?
  > 
  > I myself consider HPB more genuine and deeper than, for example, CWL, but I am sure that some of her statements are untrue. She clearly doesn't know much of Tibet, and what she knows, only seems to come from western sources. There is also evidence that the Masters strangely don't know the Tibetan language, though according to HPB they know very well. There is an interesting article "Tracing the Source of Tibetan Phrases" by Antonios Goyios on Daniel Caldwell's website about this ignorance. Daniel told about this article on this forum in April - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/50279. I believe that HPB and her pupils wrote many of the Mahatma letters.
  > 
  > What could have been the reason for this possibly fake Tibet connection? There's a theory that the two Masters M and KH WERE real Mahatmas, but that HPB made up their living in Tibet in order to prevent Sinnett from searching for the Masters with an army in India. Maybe it happened this way, who knows? We may speculate.
  > 
  > I don't think that Paul Johnson is an enemy of Theosophy if he says that the Masters were totally unreal. Theosophists don't have to believe even in Masters.
  > 
  > Johnson made a good point that people in religious groups usually don't like historians. It is unfortunately true that also Theosophists attack historians easily. Let's not be a cult or a sect! But Johnson's posts there on another Theosophy forum are difficult and vague, because many readers don't know at all what the words like ARE, CofL and CUT, which he uses, mean.
  > 
  > Sampsa
  >



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]