Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tt00016)

> > Keith

> > But since you brought it up, isn't it strange that the Masters
> > were talking to Blavatsky, Sinnett, Leadbeater, Besant and Bailey
> > and have fallen strangely silent.

Bjorn:

> They have certainly continued talking to us; both in a more
> official (public) way and individual/personal.

Interesting that you mention that.  I have been involved in
BBS'ing and the Internet for about 12 years, now.  Since I have
been involved in Theosophy, I have had occasion to write
articles, give talks, or argue a position in front of the Lodge's
Board of Directors.  In every case where I have run into trouble,
usually only a day or two before I have to make/write the
presentation, I see/receive a message online which solves (or
points to the solution) to the whole problem.

One time, in particular, I was about to do a talk on hypnotism,
based on Blavatsky's article on the subject.  It was clear to me
that what Blavatsky called hypnotism and what psychologists call
hypnotism were two completely different things, but no prima
facie (sp?) proof.  One day before the lecture, however, there
was an article in alt.sci.skeptic about the doctor who was
clearly the source of Blavatsky's knowledge on hypnotism (his
name escapes me at the moment, but it is in the Theosophical
Glossary).  I had just enough time to verify that information and
incorporate it into my talk; it was a rousing success, with a
number of people who assumed that hypnotism was evil because of
the unfortunate page heading in the S.  D.  changing their minds.

Now, I'm not saying that this information comes from the
Mahatmas.  But, if I were a Mahatma today, email is a LOT simpler
yet very similar to precipitating letters.