Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00115)

Are these Phoney/Imitation Mahatma Letters??: 
Summary of the Argument & Issues

[This posting only gives the bare bones of what I will try to later
present in greater detail.  I give this outline simply to present
a rough overview of the argument, issues and implications 
involved.  I'm hoping all contributors to this thread will try to 
grapple with the underlying issue(s) presented and any implications 
that there may be.] 

H.P. Blavatsky herself frames the basic argument/issue as follows:

===============================================================
...We have been asked by a correspondent why he should not "be free
to suspect some of the so-called 'precipitated' [Mahatma] letters as 
being forgeries," giving as his reason for it that while some of 
them bear the stamp of (to him) undeniable genuineness, others seem 
from their contents and style, to be imitations.
==============================================================

BELOW are FIVE examples of Mahatma Letters considered as "phoney" 
or "imitations" or "dubious" by certain Theosophical students:

1881         Prayag letter (Letter 134 in first 3 eds of 
             Mahatma Letters) --- doubted by Henry Olcott

1882         KH Letter on "God"  (Letter 10 in first 3 
             eds of Mahatma Letters) --- doubted by Hugh Shearman

1888         KH Letter to Henry Olcott (S.S. Shannon 
             Letter) --- doubted by A.P. Sinnett

1888-1889    KH Letter on Concentrating on the Master 
             as a Living Man within you. --- doubted by Mark Jaqua

1900         KH Letter to Annie Besant ---  doubted by Dallas 
             TenBroeck, Vernon Harrison and Walter 
             A. Carrithers, Jr.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some general observations:

All of the above individuals (Olcott, Shearman, Sinnett, Jaqua, 
TenBroeck, and Carrithers, with the possible exception of Harrison) 
are students of Theosophy.  

It would appear that all of the above individuals believe in the 
existence of H.P.B.'s Masters.  I am assuming Harrison did, too.

It would also appear that they believe that there are genuine 
letters that actually were written by the Mahatmas.

But in each of the above 5 examples, the CONTENTION is made that the 
Mahatma letters in question seem "from their contents and style, to 
be imitations."

In other words, presumably the argument is made that the REAL Master 
could NOT or would NOT have written said letter(s) or the contents 
of the letters in question.  

I assume that at least in some of these instances the Theosophical 
student may be thinking or claiming that someone else (other than 
the real Master) must have written these letters or communications 
and attributed the words/thoughts to the real Mahatmas.  

[NOTE:  So that there is no confusion in anyone's mind about my 
position, I am of the opinion that the first four letters are 
genuine and are from HPB's teachers.  I have some reservations about 
the 1900 Letter to Mrs. Besant but I am inclined to agree with
Carlos Aveline's affirmative estimation of the letter.]

I also give BELOW H.P. Blavatsky's extended remarks in reply to her 
unnamed "correspondent" since HPB puts into words quite well many of 
the issues and implications involved. 

In Oct. 1888 in the pages of her magazine LUCIFER, Madame Blavatsky 
wrote:

==========================================================
...We have been asked by a correspondent why he should not "be free
to suspect some of the so-called 'precipitated' letters as being
forgeries," giving as his reason for it that while some of them bear
the stamp of (to him) undeniable genuineness, others seem from their
contents and style, to be imitations.

This is equivalent to saying that he has such an unerring spiritual
insight as to be able to detect the false from the true, though he
has never met a Master, nor been given any key by which to test his
alleged communications. The inevitable consequence of applying his
untrained judgment in such cases, would be to make him as likely as
not to declare false what was genuine, and genuine what was false.

Thus what criterion has any one to decide between one "precipitated"
letter, or another such letter?

Who except their authors, or those whom they employ as
their amanuenses (the chelas and disciples), can tell? For it is
hardly one out of a hundred "occult" letters that is ever written by
the hand of the Master, in whose name and on whose behalf they are
sent, as the Masters have neither need nor leisure to write them;
and that when a Master says, "I wrote that letter," it means only
that every word in it was dictated by him and impressed under his
direct supervision. Generally they make their chela, whether near or
far away, write (or precipitate) them, by impressing upon his mind
the ideas they wish expressed, and if necessary aiding him in the
picture-printing process of precipitation. It depends entirely upon
the chela's state of development, how accurately the ideas may be
transmitted and the writing-model imitated.

Thus the non-adept recipient is left in the dilemma of uncertainty,
whether, if one letter is false, all may not be; for, as far as
intrinsic evidence goes, all come from the same source, and are
brought by the same mysterious means.

But there is another, and a far worse condition implied. For all
that the recipient of "occult" letters can possibly know, and on the
simple grounds of probability and common honesty, the unseen
correspondent who would tolerate one single fraudulent line in his
name, would wink at an unlimited repetition of the
deception.

And this leads directly to the following. All the so-
called occult letters being supported by identical proofs, they have
all to stand or fall together. If one is to be doubted, then all
have, and the series of letters in the "Occult World," "Esoteric
Buddhism," etc., etc., may be, and there is no reason why they
should not be in such a case - frauds, "clever impostures,"
and "forgeries," such as the ingenuous though stupid agent [Richard
Hodgson] of the "S.P.R." has made them out to be, in order to raise
in the public estimation the "scientific" acumen and standard of
his "Principals."...
==============================================================

Daniel
http://hpb.cc