Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00247)

According to Dr. A.M.Bain:

> My reason for, if you like, "jumping the gun" on this one is that
> I too have wondered what all this is supposed to be about, and I
> STILL am firmly convinced that it not who the Masters (or anyone
> else) _really_ were or are that matters, but whether of not *what
> was written is worth taking seriously*.  It was, it is, and will
> remain so.  _Theosophia_ is divine wisdom whoever writes it down.

Usually, it is a good idea to beware any formulation that says a)
doesn't really matter, b) does.  This implies an either/or
approach that from the outset excludes the middle possibility--
that both matter, but in different ways.

My observation is that HPB's writings have not been taken nearly
seriously enough outside the TS precisely because of distrust
about their alleged sources.  While I doubt anyone will figure
out exactly who wrote the Mahatma letters or how, it is possible
to establish that HPB knew what she was writing about.  To show,
as TMR does, that she was closely linked to the most learned
experts of her time in such diverse fields as Masonry,
Rosicrucianism, Sufism, the Vedas, the Vedanta, Theravada
Buddhism, Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism, Sikhism, Spiritualism...  is
to establish her as at least worth considering as a serious
author.  Whereas the consensus of non-Theosophical writers that
she invented the Masters and wrote self-deluded channeling
material, with no scholarly legitimacy, has prevented her
writings from being appreciated properly.

In short, you are right that it doesn't matter exactly who the
Masters were, and moreover her writings' value is the same
regardless of where they came from.  But the fact that her
teachings were derived from real teachers, and that she knew
whereof she wrote, IS important to the goal of getting humanity
to listen to her wisdom.