Plausibility: Bruce & Jake on the 1900 KH Letter and related thoughts
Sep 21, 2006 12:17 PM
Bruce wrote in regards to the 1900 KH letter:
Annie Besant was a disciple of a Prayag theosophist, Chakravarti. By
entering into such an arrangement she accepted much of the
superstitious psychic garbage that surrounded these deluded members,
dark planetaries and all. If the Masters were not going to waste a
letter on the Prayag theosophists, why on a Prayag disciple who
attacked one of their own in a display of utter ingratitude?
If the Masters were going to send a letter to anyone, would it not
have been to Olcott. Olcott was karmically responsible for the
Society, he was the President, and he was the last of the founders.
This letter to Besant could also be seen as an attack against Olcott,
playing further on his own doubts as to why the Masters ceased
communication with him. Olcott would pour over this letter and find
nothing in the generalities to give him a clue as to where he went
wrong. This letter could be argued to be serving karma by punishing a
doubt-ridden man. An enemy of theosophy might find this letter
satisfying on so many different levels.
Do you think this plausible Daniel?
Above quoted from:
Now compare and contrast the above statements with what Jake wrote
about the same 1900 KH letter:
On Bruce's comments on the "1900
Letter" about it bogusly setting up
Besant as an endorsed leader of some
sort. This might be so, but at 1900
I think perhaps she hadn't been totally
taken over yet, and was still redeemable,
perhaps. And there is nothing wrong
with wanting to lead people in Theosophy.
The Teacher may have just tried to give
motivation to her higher ideals, which
she temporarily inspired herself with
again. At this time, hadn't she
escaped Chakravarti and was "in between"
black gurus" - not totally under CWL's
spell yet? Maybe it was a temporary
return to her old Blavatsky-inspired
Above quoted from:
Now regarding Bruce's scenario, he asked me:
"Do you think this plausible Daniel?"
So looking at Jake's scenario, one might ask too:
"Is this also plausible?"
As far as I can tell, each of these scenarios
is plausible IN THE CONTEXT OF AND DEPENDING ON WHAT BACKGROUND
ASSUMPTIONS YOU MAKE.
By carefully studying both Bruce's and Jake's comments, I
would suggest that you can glean some info about their own
And I would assume that some of their assumptions DIFFER.
Again, as far as I can tell, each of these scenarios (& other
factors too!) leads Bruce and Jake to totally different conclusions.
Bruce believes the 1900 KH letter is "phoney" or bogus or whatever
adjective Bruce prefers.
Jake believes the same letter is "genuine" KH.
Now I would assume that the rest of us or at least some of us might
agree that both conclusions cannot be true.
So did the real KH write this 1900 letter or did he not?
Ah, if we could ask the real KH, I assume he would know and could
tell us. His answer might be quite an eye-opener!
Two students (in this case Bruce and Jake) [who are (I will assume)
sincere students of Theosophy and who are (I assume) not only
readers but also students of THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT
and therefore might have some familiarity with KH's style, wording,
--- each of them come to what appears are totally opposite views.
I think that the above observations help us to understand the
wisdom of what H.P. Blavatsky wrote in THE SECRET DOCTRINE:
"Every reader will inevitably judge the statements made [in this
case the statements made in the 1900 KH letter!!!] from the stand-
point of his OWN knowledge, experience, and consciousness, based on
what he has ALREADY learnt."
Can we draw insights from any of the above?
In my next email, I will try to present a few morsels of food to
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application