Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00106)

James Santucci, in an article on The United Lodge of Theosophists 
for "The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions" (Prometheus 
Press, page 503), wrote:

"In 1909, [Robert] Crosbie, with these same interested acquaintances 
who shared his views that only the Source Theosophy of Blavatsky and 
Judge should be studied, formed the United Lodge of Theosophists in 
Los Angeles. What set this group apart from other theosophical 
societies was (and continues to be) its stress only on Source 
Theosophy (EXCLUDING EVEN the letters of the masters K.H. and M 
written between 1880 and 1884 to . . . A.P. Sinnett). . . ." Caps 
added.

In the 1930s, H.N. Stokes, the editor of "The O.E. Library Critic" 
(Washington, D.C.), wrote at least two articles on the United Lodge 
of Theosophist's attitude toward "the letters of the masters K.H. and 
M." The articles are:

"Is the ULT Boycotting The Mahatma Letters?" ("The O.E. Library 
Critic," April, 1934.)

"Magazine Theosophy Places The Mahatma Letters on ULT Index 
Expurgatorius." ("The O.E. Library Critic," May-June, 1935.

Stokes noted that soon after "The Mahatma Letters" were first 
published in London in Dec., 1923, "Theosophy" Magazine (the Los 
Angeles based ULT periodical) "hailed" the publication of these 
letters as follows:

"These letters are, beyond all question the one great and final 
contribution to Theosophical literature and history since 'The Secret 
Doctrine.' They solve the hitherto baffling and inscrutable mysteries 
in connection with the public course of the Movement, by bringing to 
light the missing links of its degradation through theosophists, 
theosophical societies, and the world at large. ... Let all true 
Theosophists rejoice at the light that is now shed on the dark places 
of the past and present." — "Theosophy" Magazine, March, 1924

But Stokes pointed out that four ULT magazines (including "Theosophy" 
Magazine) subsequently had the practice of quoting from "The Mahatma 
Letters" but never telling their readers that they were quoting from 
the book entitled "The Mahatma Letters To A. P. Sinnett." Stokes 
found that in the years 1928-1933, these four ULT magazines had 
quoted 87 times from the Letters. Stokes wrote:

"Of the 87 quotations from The Mahatma Letters only one gives 
reference; the others afford not the slightest clue to the source, 
not the slightest possibility of the student locating it without 
laborious search. He is not even permitted to know the existence of 
such a book as 'The Mahatma Letters'." — "The O.E. Library
Critic," April, 1934

In the other article mentioned above, Stokes discussed an article 
published in "Theosophy" Magazine for February, 1935. The anonymous 
ULT associate wrote for two or three pages on "The Mahatma Letters" 
but then concluded:

"All that is taught in the Letters is contained in 'The Secret 
Doctrine' ... and is there presented in proper form for students 
under the direct instruction and sponsoring of the Mahatmas 
themselves. The publication of the 'Mahatma Letters' in violation of 
Their own injunction, and recourse to these Letters [by Theosophical 
students] instead of to The Secret Doctrine for instruction in 
Occultism, shows the difference between true and false psychology. 
Mr. Sinnett's use of the Letters was such as to close to him the door 
opened via H.P.B. with the Mahatmas: What will be the effect of the 
unlawful publication and use of them thus made possible to so many 
hopeless Incurables in the Mysteries?"

Stokes pointed out that several of the assertions made in this 
quotation are not true. Stokes went on to say:

"But when the 'Theosophy' Magazine writer speaks of 'false 
psychology' and of 'hopeless Incurables in the Mysteries' one is 
prompted to ask whether these rather strong terms do not apply to 
himself. He is constantly referring in these articles to 'The Mahatma 
Letters.' Consequently he must have read them. If so, why does he do 
that which he thinks it improper for others to do because of their 
private nature? And why did the magazine 'Theosophy' in its series 
[of articles] later published as 'The Theosophical Movement' [in 1925 
as a book] constantly quote from documents [written by H.P.B. and] 
marked private and issued to E.S.T. members under pledge of secrecy? 
Are we to suppose that this anonymous writer, or the editors 
of 'Theosophy' Magazine, are above all rules applying to lesser 
mortals? No, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. 
If 'The Mahatma Letters' are private documents today, no one without 
a diploma of sanctity and a special permit from the Mahatmas is more 
entitled to read them than any others, or to discourage others from 
doing what he does himself when it suits his purpose ... .Sensible 
students will not be deterred by talk from those who do not practise 
what they preach." — "The O.E. Library Critic," May-June, 1935.

It would appear that in the intervening decades, most ULT students 
have continued to object to the publication of The Mahatma Letters.

Even recently on Theos-Talk, Steven Levey, a ULT student, wrote:

". . . I was a member of the T.S 30 years ago and after a short stay 
of a couple of years, I joined the United Lodge of 
Theosophists. . . . My study and the closest students within my 
circle of study feel as if they (The Mahatma Letters)are nearly 
impossible to use since their context or focus seemed to be to 
individual students. They are valid as productions of the beings 
attributed to, but their subject matter seemed to be limited to 
the student on the original receiving end. Therefore, and as such, 
they should never have been published to a general audience. I read 
them when they came my way as a member of the T.S. At that time, as I 
do when I read something difficult to characterize or to practically 
use, I put them on a 'back burner', so to speak. Upon spending many 
years studying HPB's The Secret Doctrine along with her collective 
writtings as well as Willam Quan Judge's, Robert Crosbie, and others, 
it became clear to me that students who flaunt knowledge of the 
Mahatma Letters are doing so for some egocentric purpose. Why? 
Because when you place what the Mahatmas have said in the context in 
which they are placed in thoughtful writtings aimed at giving the 
student as much context as possible in which to understand their 
wisdom, one might learn something useful. Otherwise, the Mahatma 
Letters stand only as an inigma. Real, but rather practically 
useless. Those in HPB's direct lineage, which leaves out many, if not 
most writers in the Thesophical Society, who have recieved further 
instruction from the Lodge of Mahatmas, have never given a collection 
of the Mahatma letters to be printed. They have ALWAYS been exerpted 
and put in the context of principled ideation regarding a subject 
matter in discussion. Why exerpted? Because it is clear 
to students of the Wisdom religion, that the Chelas of Mahatmas are 
given instructions as to how the wisdom of the Teacher will be used. 
This trust is beyond question amongst those so chosen. . . . "
Quoted from:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/9217

Turning again to the ULT writer previously quoted who wrote that 
the "publication of the 'Mahatma Letters' [is] in violation of Their 
own injunction," I will now explore this aspect of the subject.

It is true that the Master Koot Hoomi wrote the following concerning 
the publication of his own letters and notes to Sinnett:

"The letters, in short, were not written for publication or public 
comment upon them, but for private use, and neither M. nor I would 
ever give our consent to see them thus handled." — Mahatma Letter
No. 63

But one should read the whole letter from which I have quoted in 
order to see the context in which those words were made.

But this K.H. quotation should ALSO be viewed in light of another 
letter from the Mahatma K.H. which throws additional light on the 
issue of publishing the letters from the Masters. 

In the summer of 1884, Mohini Chatterji and Laura C. Holloway were 
writing a book on Theosophy entitled "Man: Fragments of Forgotten 
History." Both Mohini and Laura were chelas of K.H. In a letter 
addressed to Mohini, Master K.H. wrote:

"You may, if you choose so, or find necessity for it, use in Man [the 
above titled book] or in any other book you may chance to be 
collaborating for, anything I may have said in relation to our secret 
doctrines in any of my letters to Messrs. Hume or Sinnett. Those 
portions that were private have never been allowed by them to be 
copied by anyone; and those which are so copied have by the very fact 
become theosophical property. Besides, copies of my letters — at
any rate those that contained my teachings — have always been
sent bymy order to Damodar and Upasika [H.P.B.], and some of the 
portions even used in 'The Theosophist.' You are at liberty to even 
copy them verbatim and without quotation marks. ... Thus not only 
you, a chela of mine, but anyone else is at liberty to take anything, 
whole pages, if thought proper, from any of my "copied" letters and 
convert their 'dross' into pure ore of gold, provided they have well 
grasped the thought. Show this to L.C.H. who was already told the 
same."— Letter 39 in "Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom,"
First
Series

It should also be pointed out that a great deal of the teaching 
letters from K.H. and M. were quoted in the following books published 
in the 1880s: 

* "The Occult World" by A.P. Sinnett. (First edition published 1881)

* "Esoteric Buddhism" by A.P. Sinnett. (First edition published 1883)

* "The Occult World" by A.P.S. See 4th English edition, 1884, 
Appendix, pp. 145-149 for an additional KH letter.

* "Man: Fragments of Forgotten History" by Two Chelas [Chatterji and 
Holloway) (First edition, published 1885)

* "The Secret Doctrine" by H.P. Blavatsky. (First published 1888). 
See especially Vol. I where H.P.B. quotes from several of KH's 
letters to Sinnett.

* In additional to the above books, excerpts from the Masters' 
letters were published in various articles in "The Theosophist" (1881-
1883).

* Also W.J. Judge published lengthy extracts from K.H.'s letters to 
Sinnett dealing with Kamaloka and Devachan. See "The Path," August, 
1889, Nov., 1889, May, 1890 and June, 1890. These articles have been 
reprinted by The Theosophy Company, Los Angeles, in their 
compilation "Theosophical Articles and Notes," 1985, pp. 236-247.

* H.P.B. also quoted extracts from KH's Letters to Sinnett in the 
pages of "Lucifer."

* Judge published the Prayag Letter [also contained in "The Mahatma 
Letters to A. P. Sinnett" in "The Path" in the early 1890s.

And there are more . . . . 

It would be an interesting exercise to take a copy of "The Mahatma 
Letters to A. P. Sinnett" and underline in red all the passages that 
have been published in the above sources.

Directing attention back to KH's letter to Mohini in which mention is 
made of the "copied letters" which have "become theosophical 
property", Francesca Arundale, an early Theosophist, had "three 
manuscript books" of "these early teachings" from the Masters. 
Evidence indicates that Sinnett copied these "teachings" from the 
letters of the Masters and sent them to London for the benefit of 
Arundale and other students of Theosophy. These "teaching letters" as 
found in Arundale"s manuscript books were eventually published by C. 
Jinarajadasa in 1923 under the title "The Early Teachings of the 
Masters 1881 to 1883." This book by Jinarajadasa was published some 
months before A. Trevor Barker published the complete collection of 
letters from the Masters K.H. and M. in London in Dec. 1923.

In the light of the above historical facts, would ULT students be 
willing to study "The Early Teachings of the Masters"? Would the 
United Lodge of Theosophists be willing to publicly circulate this 
volume by Jinarajadasa or a similarly compiled work?

Now another issue. ULT associates privately read and study "The 
Mahatma Letters." But if we are to take literally and at face value 
the Master K.H.'s prohibition on the publishing of the letters in 
their entirety, then once any ULT student reads this prohibition, 
would not reason and logic dictate that he should close the book and 
never pick The Mahatma Letters up again? As H.N. Stokes wrote:

"If 'The Mahatma Letters' are private documents today, no one without 
a diploma of sanctity and a special permit from the Mahatmas is more 
entitled to read them than any others."

One final thought.

I have noticed that one prominent ULT writer (Dallas TenBroeck) 
quotes a great deal from "The Mahatma Letters" in his postings on 
this and other discussion groups.

It would appear that Dallas TenBRoeck does not take the following 
words from KH's letter as a prohibition not to read the letters:

"The letters, in short, were not written for publication or public 
comment upon them, but for private use, and neither M. nor I would 
ever give our consent to see them thus handled." — Mahatma Letter
No. 
63

But I find this rather inconsistent in light of the following words 
from Dallas on HPB's Esoteric School and her ES instructions:

"In regard to the matters concerning the E S of the THEOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY, the E S T, the E S, etc., etc. I have noticed (and taken
seriously to myself) the desire expressed by Mme. Blavatsky, Mr.
Judge, (and their teachers, the Mahatmas) that matters of
'esotericism' be kept private and not discussed publicly. I
have therefore, for myself, and out of respect for their wishes,
made it a rule of not discussing such affairs as might impinge on
their request for privacy. . . . "
Quoted from:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/1940

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com