Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00122)

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

> If you are talking about the real letter from the Maha-Chohan,
> you are right. But the fact is that Oliviera very much likes
> the phoney ones, and has quoted them several times.

Then please show me where Oliveira quoted the forged letter of 
Maha-chohan.

> but the origin of the word is Tibetan, and hence both M. and K.H. 
> was/are Indian Hindus, it is nothing strange about the fact
> that they was/are using it.

The point is that scholars doubt its tibetan origin and may conclude  
on that basis that nor Blavatsky neither her Masters, if they existed, 
never were in Tibet.
So I think it's not safe to affirm that this word is tibetan.


> I have one question to you, Konstantin. How, on earth, could
> you believed that my comments was about Pedro's "god-article"?

I was misled by a link posted by someone afterwards. Your article 
didn't contain the link to the original article criticized, and I've 
thought that it was supplied later. And Pedro's "God-article"
also contained quotes from Maha-chohan. I've read it a day later after 
your article and didn'r remember the title.

As for sectarianism, I meant under it that only one version of 
theosophy was called genuine while all others were branded as pseudo.

But theosophy cannot be a doctrine, be it from HPB or someone else. 
It's the divine wisdom and truth in absolute sense but in a human 
sense  it's not a doctrine but rather an approach which is 
incompatible with blind belief in any doctrines.
To believe that theosophy from mr. Smith is true while theosophy from 
mr. Jones is false is not much better than to believe that 
Christianity from the Russian Orthodox church is true and from Roman 
Catholic church is false.