Concerning Anand's statements about FAKE Mahatma messages
Oct 12, 2008 08:47 AM
I do hope that you will take the time and effort to share your
thinking and reasoning with Theos-Talk readers on the issues
addressed in this posting BELOW.
Of course, you have every right to believe anything you want to
believe. But I would remind you --- since your Theos-Talk postings
are public on a worldwide basis and that there are no doubt a good
number of new people, inquirers and new students to Theosophy which
read your postings --- that you should keep in mind that what you
write may have some kind of negative influence on some of these new
people. Consider that your view on this subject may lead some of them
to totally reject Theosophy.
In light of this, I hope that you will take the necessary time and
effort to SHARE with all of us here on Theos-Talk your thinking and
reasoning so that each one of us can understand your view and how you
arrived at that view.
Hoping for a thorough discussion of this important matter with you.
I invite you to discuss the IMPLICATIONS of your statement that HPB
might have faked some Mahatma messages.
Blavatsky could materialize cup and soccer using occult powers. She
also might have materialized Mahatma Letters. Most people in the
Theosophical Society assume that all Mahatma Letters are genuine
messages from the Masters by giving reasons that handwriting matches,
they appeared in miraculous ways etc. But the fact is just as
Blavatsky materialized cup and soccer, she could materialize Mahatma
Letters. And to support Blavatsky's own opinions, she materialized
Mahatma Letters carrying her own thoughts. This possibility is not
considered by even most studious members of the TS.
Style of writing and contradictions in Mahatma Letters suggest a
strong possibility that many of the Mahatma Letters were not having
thoughts of the Masters, but were carrying thoughts of Blavatsky
pretending to be thoughts of Masters.
Let me try to raise several points for you and other readers
to consider and ponder on.
(1) I would think that the vast majority of people in the world who
know anything about Madame Blavatsky probably consider her a fraud
who faked psychic phenomena and made up the whole story about the
In other words, HPB had no psychic powers at all. And there were no
Mahatmas ..... period. H.P.B. just made the whole thing up and with
the help of confederates faked appearances of the Masters and also
wrote the Mahatma letters. None of the letters were from the Mahatmas
because the Mahatmas didn't exist in the first place!!!
(2) Now let us turn to your position or belief about the Masters.
As indicated in your most recent posting on Theos-Talk and from what
you have written over the last few years in this same forum, it would
appear that you accept that (a) HPB had real psychic powers and that,
for instance, she could actually materialize objects. Not fakery,
real genuine psychic powers; and (b) you believe there were real
live Mahatmas, that is, Koot Hoomi and Morya, etc.
Now if I have misstated your BASIC belief or opinion here I hope you
will correct me.
(3) Now keeping in mind statement (2) above, you now state that you
believe "many of the Mahatma Letters were not having
thoughts of the Masters, but were carrying thoughts of Blavatsky
PRETENDING to be thoughts of Masters." caps added.
So here you seem to be saying that some of the letters may have
contained the "thoughts of the Masters" but other letters supposedly
from the Masters actually were NOT from the Masters but contained
instead "thoughts of Blavatsky pretending to be thoughts of Masters."
If indeed this is what you are trying to communicate to readers of
Theos-Talk, then I ask you the following:
How do you Anand, how do you determine which letters are actually
giving the "thoughts of the Masters" and which letters are
simply "thoughts of Blavatsky pretending to be thoughts of
This is an important question to answer.
Again let me try to approach this issue in another way.
It seems to me that you are saying in effect that you have the
knowledge and insight which puts you in a position to be able to say
which letter/message is from Master Koot Hoomi and which
letter/message didn't really come from Koot Hoomi.
I would like to know what your criteria or guidelines are for judging
if a letter/message is from the real Master KH or a letter/message is
NOT from the real Master KH.
Let me just give 2 real examples of KH letters.
I have repeatedly quoted from the KH letter received by Col. Olcott
on board the S.S. Shannon on Aug. 22, 1888. I assume you know about
this letter. So can you Anand tell interested readers on Theos-Talk
whether this letter is from the real KH or is not from the real KH?
And whatever you answer is, how did you make that determination?
What facts or evidence or reasoning convinced you one way or the
Now consider the following Mahatma letter.
In a KH letter received by Mr. Sinnett on July 18,
1884, you will see that KH told Sinnett the following:
"You ask me if you can tell Miss Arundale what I told you thro' Mrs. H
[olloway]. . . . . .[But] I have NEVER . . . COMMUNICATED WITH YOU OR
ANY ONE ELSE THRO' HER . . . . . She is an excellent but quite
undeveloped clairvoyante. . . . ." The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., p.
355 [CAPS ADDED.]
Sinnett apparently didn't believe that the real Master KH wrote this
statement. How did he come to this conclusion?
And when Sinnett related his view about this letter to HPB, she wrote
the following to him:
"My dear Mr. Sinnett,
"It is very strange that you should be ready to deceive yourself so
willingly. I have seen last night whom I had to see, and getting the
explanation I wanted I am now settled on points I was not only
doubtful about but positively averse to accepting. And the words in
the first line are words I am bound to repeat to you as a warning,
and because I regard you, after all, as one of my best personal
friends. Now you have and are deceiving, in vulgar parlance,
bamboozling yourself about the letter received by me yesterday from
the Mahatma. The letter is from Him, whether written through a chela
or not; and -- perplexing as it may seem to you, contradictory
and 'absurd,' it is the full expression of his feelings and he
maintains what he said in it. For me it is surpassingly strange that
you should accept as His only that which dovetails with your own
feelings, and reject all that contradicts your own notions of the
fitness of things. . . . you imagine, or rather force yourself to
imagine that the Mahatma's letter is not wholly orthodox and was
written by a chela to please me, or something of the sort. . . . If
you -- the most devoted, the best of all Theosophists -- are ready
to fall a victim to your own preconceptions and believe in new gods
of your own fancy dethroning the old ones -- then, notwithstanding
all and everything Theosophy has come too early in this
country. . . . Yours, H.P.B.
Anand, I ask you to look closely at HPB's words which read:
"For me it is surpassingly strange that you should accept as His
[Mahatma Koot Hoomi's] only that which dovetails with YOUR OWN
feelings, and reject all that contradicts YOUR OWN notions of the
fitness of things." caps added.
The reader and student needs to ask: Did Mr. Sinnett know enough to
be able to say: "ah this letter is not from the real KH or yes this
letter is from him."
If Sinnett knew of Koot Hoomi's opinions, thoughts and teachings ONLY
THROUGH these Mahatma letters received from 1880 to 1884, how would
he determine between real and pseudo letters or messages from KH?
So Anand, I ask you: what is your opinion about this Koot Hoomi
letter received in 1884 by Mr. Sinnett?
Do you believe this letter/message was from the real Master Koot
Hoomi or was it a letter/message "not having thoughts of the Masters,
but were carrying thoughts of Blavatsky pretending to be thoughts of
And whatever your opinion, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
What is your thinking and reasoning which led you to that opinion?
I have more points to make but will close this first part for now.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application