Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00094)

Morten,

Earlier this week I was attempting to answer some of your questions 
and points as given in your posting at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8405

But after I read some of the following comments by you, I decided not 
to spend the time and effort it would take to answer all of your 
questions and points.

For example, in one of your comments you wrote:

"But Daniel maybe I didn't really want an answer to that question. 
Maybe I wanted the readers to THINK. To THINK is here to develop 
your inner organ - i.e. to merge with your inner being. The person 
who first made the Mahatma Letter - ML23b public was maybe a racist 
or just stupid...because of the misunderstandings it created and 
creates."

In fact, I had previously taken more than an hour to track down the 
facts so I could answer the original question you had posed!!

But why should I have taken that time and effort to try to answer 
your question when you later admit that "maybe I [you] didn't really 
want an answer to that question"???!!!

Or take another comment of yours:

"The ML23b is fake in the sense, that no true Master would TODAY 
write such a letter and make it publicly known ! Past papers and pas 
books are nearly always only recommended to a PAST audience by the 
true Master. --- I suggest, this: Let us be more concerned with the 
present hour of turmoil, pump and circumstance, than these past 
events."

What could I possibly write in response to those kind of comments?

And since you want us to "be more concerned with the prsent hour of 
turmoil", then why waste time responding to your comments 
about "these past events?

Or one more example:

I had written:

"But HPB's writings on races seem to contain very SIMILAR ideas to
what KH writes in ML-23b. Following your previous reasoning, could
not one speculate that HPB's writings have been tampered with? Or
somehow faked?"

and your "Sufilight answer" was in part:

"Yes and no. The situation differs because Blavatsky was writing a 
book, and because she was the person/soul she was, and because A. P. 
Sinnnett was the person/soul he was. . . . "

What, pray tell, does that mean? I could NOT answer that point for 
the primary reason I was not at all sure exactly what your point 
was.

I don't mean that all of your comments were similar to the above, but 
I felt and still feel that most of what you had written did not 
require further comments from me. 

Furthermore, you write that I had never responded to the following 
posting by you:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8078

I will try to answer your 2 or 3 points in this posting in the next 
several days.

Daniel