Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00102)

Dear Carl,

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Carl Ek wrote:

> There is more then one letter that are said to come from the Maha-
> Chohan. The one that Pedro and Linda likes (about that god has a 
> personality), is very clear fake (author Ernest Wood or Leadbeater 

I know only one letter, that which he quoted, and I've studied it 
very thoroughly, as I corrected its translation into the Russian. I 
also took part in a seminar (lead by Mary Anderson, our international 
secretary) where this letter was studied, so I am sure that there is 
nothing common with concept of personal god in this letter.

The author speaks much in favour of Buddhism and somewhat despisedly 
about Christianity, - at least, about its version spread by the 
preachers.

Another weak point of the article is the treatment the term Maha-
chohan. Yes, it really means "Big Boss", but it was still impossible 
to trace tibetan roots of the word "chohan". It is unknown to the 
most Tibetans, and cannot be found in the dictionaries. Maybe it a 
part of a slang of early theosophists or had or is a dialectism of 
the Tibetan-Indian border. Moreover, the Tibetans not apt to combine 
tibetan and sanskrit words; they tend to translate into tibetan even 
the names of the buddhas, so the use of a sanskrit word which just 
means "big" seems strange. I suspect that "chohan" comes from the 
tibetan "chos" - dharma, but I'm not sure. They already have a term 
for a keeper or protector of Dharma which sounds somewhat 
like "choije".

> My article was not I reply on Pedro's God-article, but on another 
> one, called "Which Theosophy?".

Sorry, here I was mistaken.