Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00258)

Are these Phoney Mahatma Letters or Genuine Letters??
Summary of the Argument & Issues

I give the following outline in order to present an 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.

In 1888 H.P. Blavatsky herself framed 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 (more could be cited) of Mahatma Letters 
considered as "phoney" or "dubious" by certain Theosophical students:

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

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 Jake Jaqua
on Theos-Talk

1900 KH Letter to Annie Besant --- doubted by Victor Endersby, 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 also genuine
letters that actually were written or precipitated by the Mahatmas.

But in the above 5 examples, the CONTENTION is made that the
SPECIFIC 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 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.  Hence "phoney".

[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 states quite well many of
the issues and implications involved.

I'm hoping some readers will comment on H.P.B.'s various points.

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