Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00983)

Anand,

Thank you for your recent posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/47092

Let me comment on some of your specific statements.

You say:  

----------------------------------------------------------
Blavatsky's this statement is admission that Mahatma Letters are not 
entirely reliable.
----------------------------------------------------------------

But should we therefore assume Mahatma Letters are ENTIRELY 
UNRELIABLE?

And if we say something is not "entirely reliable" or 
even "unreliable", then how do we know this?  

Talking in vague general terms doesn't really help us.  Specifics and 
details are everything.

And please tell us what Theosophical writing is ENTIRELY reliable??

Again you write [first quoting Blavatsky]:

-------------------------------------------------------
"It depends entirely upon the chela's state of development, how
accurately the ideas may be transmitted and the writing-model 
imitated."
Here we need to note that Blavatsky here tells that IDEAS are
transmitted. (she did not say words were transmitted) So there is
contradiction. At one place Blavatsky writes that every WORD was
dictated and at other places she says IDEAS were transmitted
-----------------------------------------------------------

But Anand ask yourself what does this really mean?

Let me take for example the workings of MY OWN mind.

When I decide to answer a posting of yours, and start to compose the 
answer, I may decide in my mind to convey a certain "idea" or even A 
series of ideas.  At that point I may know the idea  I want to 
express but I have not decided what specific words to use to convey 
the "idea".  I then choose certain words to convey the idea I want to 
express.  In composing a sentence I may even stop and consider which 
word is best to use to express the underlying idea.  What exact word 
is appropriate to use as an adjective or adverb or noun or verb.

If I do a first draft, and then have time to reread it, I may decide 
to add or change or delete a word or phrase to better express the 
underlying "idea" that I am trying to convey.

So IN OUR OWN MINDS we can see how "ideas" are clothed in 
particular "words".

So I would think that the same basic mental process is at work even 
with Masters and chelas!!

So let us not quibble too much about "ideas" versus "words".  Much 
more could be said about this but I will move on.

You comment:

---------------------------------------------------------------
But as it does depend on chela's development, it is clear that chela 
could make mistakes in precipitating those letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well of course mistakes can be made!  But that doesn't mean that 
mistakes WERE ACTUALLY made in a particular letter.   

Maybe out of 10 letters transmitted there might be an occasional 
mistake or "blunder" made.  But possibly no mistake was made in those 
particular 10 letters.  Or in those 10 letters there COULD BE 2,456 
mistakes!  

As long as one confines oneself to the realm of the vague and 
general, many many posssibilities can be considered but that doesn't 
tell us much.

And let us not confine these observations only to the Mahatma letters.

It would apply ALSO to the writings of Madame Blavatsky as well as to 
the writings of any other person who claims to be an occultist, 
whether that person is William Judge, or Katherine Tingley or Annie 
Besant or C.W. Leadbeater or G. de Purucker or Alice Bailey or a 
dozen other so-called and self-proclaimed occultists.

Even if we ASSUME/ACCEPT that a particular person was in 
communication with the Mahatmas, then any of their writings MIGHT 
contain mistakes or misunderstandings.

If chelas can make mistakes in precipitating letters, then any of the 
writings of the named or unnamed individuals I have listed above 
could ALSO contain mistakes and misunderstandings of the Masters' 
thoughts, ideas and teachings.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc