Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00266)

 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.

Then let such "non-Theosophical writers" pass her by.  All this "
HPB was, or was not, this or that", "who or what are the Masters
etc." sounds like apologies and excuses.  "The Secret Doctrine",
for example, stands or falls on one simple plane fact: Master's
did or did not help in it's production.  If the establishment is
not prepared to accept that the Master's
*did*.....................then let it sing for it's supper!:-) It
is the "establishment" which has to elevate itself to
theo-sophia, not theo-sophia (and her humble servants) degenerate
itself to the level or crass materialism, illusion and
personalities.

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.