Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00180)

Keith wrote a couple of days ago:

> Last night I read ML X and the proem to the SD.  I was struck by
> the difference in perspective or "maturity" or something.  The SD
> seems in advance of the ML (IMHO).  Very strange wouldn't you
> say?
>
> I think a real study could be done on the evolution of 19th
> century theosophy from the ML, through Isis to the SD.  Maybe
> someone has done it.  It seems like ideas are evolving not
> emerging full blown from the minds of the Masters.

This is something I've wanted to comment on for some days now,
but didn't have the time to do so.

To my mind, there are notable differences in the tone and
apparent aptness of the language in the ML's.  Letters 10 and 22
are an example, being on fairly similar subjects and written
close together in time.

Probably signs of a complicated data path, going perhaps via one
chela then another, plus the "receiver" factors I mentioned a
week or so ago.

And as Ann said:

> Although the letters and writings of HPB are all we have at this
> time, I have begun to wonder if that view may be dated.  The
> Masters/Mahatmas may have progressed in consciousness and might
> have even changed bodies.  Maybe some have even left for parts
> unknown to do other work.

I feel sure the Mahatmas evolved in those late 1800s, and are
still evolving in their interactions with the world.  They
certainly hoped, and learnt from experience.

> My own humble opinion of the Masters has been this for a long
> time: if you see one, he's got work for you.

Yes, Ann. I reckon you're right.

Murray Stentiford