[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Anand Really Understands How the Letters Were Transmitted?

Mar 03, 2009 01:04 AM
by Anand

--- In, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
> Does Anand Really Understand How the Letters Were Transmitted?
> Anand once wrote about the Mahatma Letters:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> As I understand, Mahatmas did not dictate every word of the letter to
> disciples, even psychically they did not communicate words of his
> letter. At the most, Masters conveyed certain ideas to chelas, these
> chelas then put those ideas into their (chelas') own words. Disciples
> writing of Master's thought depends on many factors. Disciple writes
> what he interprets Master's thought, he writes what he receives.
> Disciple may not understand Master's thought or he may partially
> understand Master's thought, or he may entirely misunderstand Master's
> thought. So when disciple writes Master's thought, we need to remember
> that that thought is disciple's understanding of Master's thought and
> so it may not be exactly Master's thought.
> If this is so, such writing by chela can not be considered as letter
> from the Master.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Anand said this is HIS understanding.
> But I give below some words of H.P. Blavatsky herself so that readers
> can compare and contrast them with what Anand has written above:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> is hardly one out of a hundred "occult" letters that is ever
> written by the [physical] hand of the Master, in whose name and on
> whose behalf they are sent, as the Masters have neither need nor
> leisure to write them; and that when a Master says, "I wrote that
> letter," it means only that EVERY WORD IN IT WAS DICTATED BY HIM and
> impressed under his DIRECT SUPERVISION.
> Generally they make their chela, whether near or far away,
> [physically] write (or precipitate) them, by impressing upon his mind
> the ideas they wish expressed, and if necessary aiding him in the
> picture-printing process of precipitation. It depends entirely upon
> the chela's state of development, how accurately the ideas may be
> transmitted and the writing-model imitated. [caps added]
> ---------------------------------------------------------

Once again we find contradiction in statements. One statement says
"every word in it was dictated"
Compare this statement with other two statements in so called Mahatma
Other statement says "Generally they make their chela, whether near or
far away, [physically] write (or precipitate) them, by impressing upon
his mind the IDEAS they wish expressed"
"It depends entirely upon the CHELA'S STATE OF DEVELOPMENT, how
accurately the IDEAS may be transmitted and the writing-model imitated."
Earlier statements says WORDS were dictated. And the other two
statements say IDEAS are conveyed. It also says that contents in the
letter depended on "CHELA'S STATE OF DEVELOPMENT". If Masters had
dictated every word to chela, and if chela could reproduce with
accuracy, then letter would be accurate transcription of Masters
words. But it is not so because letter depended on "chela's state of
It means we can't assume that Mahatma Letters were accurate
transcription of Masters words.
It means some statements in Mahatma Letters conveyed accurately what
Masters thought and other statements do not convey accurately Master's
thoughts. Then how can ordinary reader know which statements are
correct and which are incorrect? I saw incredible confusion of ideas
caused by Mahatma Letters. Students of Blavatsky and Mahatma Letters
are confused even on major ideas like whether God exists or not.

Anand Gholap

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application