Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00076)

Patrick,

> I found this letter/text posted in the public domain on
>compuserve and
>thought to share it here. Does anyone know what
>book/publication it might be
>from?
>
>Peace,
>Patrick

The earliest mention of the "1900 letter" that I know of is in
the Dec. 1936 issue of ~The Theosophist~ as an answer to the
Hare brothers' expose ~Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters~ (London:
Williams and Norgate, 1936). Jinarajadasa's main point in
disclosing the existence of the letter, was that it was written
nine years after H.P.B.'s death. So, it seems that we have the
Hare brother's book to thank for motivating C.J. to disclose
this letter. Some two years earlier, Jinarajadasa had published
a five part series on the Mahatma letters (~The Theosophist~
Sept. 1933-Feb. 1934), including photo facsimiles, but he never
once mentioned this 1900 letter. It was in the May 1937
~Theosophist~ where he reproduced the letter along with a
historical note. But alas, parts of this Mahatma letter was
blocked out. In this issue, we also have the original letter
from B.K. Matri, who evidently wrote to Besant in August of
1900, but since the evidence of dating comes from the envelope,
we can't be absolutely sure of this. The letter was reprinted
again in the ~Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom~ (1945 and
1948 editions) as letter # 46--but still with the elipses.

The first complete transcription of the 1900 letter appeared in
the Sept./Oct. (#101) issue of ~The Eclectic Theosophist.~ It
was then reprinted in the Oct. 1987 issue of ~Theosophical
History~ along with an editorial note by Leslie Price summarizing
objections different people might have to its authenticity.

>Yes, in reading over the article/letter it seemed to me that the
>Masters at the time were somewhat withdrawing their full support
>for all of the T.S.'s activities -- as when "deluding"
>influences were mentioned and the need to eliminate pride and
>vanty. I suppose this didn't make someone very happy then.

Yes this was about the time when Besant and Leadbeater were
beginning to work together resulting in the Society's change into
a cult depending upon revelations from on high.

>I very much like that the letter mentions that the Masters do
>not bend the will of another to their own -- as there has been
so much of deception and the authoritative control drama that has
>been foisted on young ones. The spiritual path is walked in
>freedom.

Amen.

John Vostermans

Just would like to let you know that the ~Theosophical History~
journal is still alive and well and is now being published out of
Fullerton CA. Subscription is $14.00 per year to:

Dr. James A. Santucci
Department of Religious Studies
California State University
Fullerton, CA. 92634-9480

>It was, IMO, Krishnamurti that saved the TS from the obvious
>path of distruction by choosing not to become its GURU and
>figurehead.

Yes, I've always felt that K's teachings are really a non
technical expression of HPB's.

>His leaving the TS had and immediate impact and over the next 30
>years there was enough regeneration within the TS to perhaps
>give it a chance to continue its work of planting those seeds.

Do you think the T.S. has succeeded?

>Does it really matter if the TS is doing its job or not? It is
>more important that we as individuals do what we believe is
>right.

Interesting. Yet Kohlberg has shown that most people are more
inclined to put loyalty over principles concerning truth, justice
and fairness. Therefore if the T.S. is not doing its job, then
it is dragging a lot of good intentioned loyal people down with
it.

>The 1900 letter is interesting but is it relavent 95 years
>later?

I see in it clear advice on how the T.S. and E.S. were to be
organized. Isn't it relevant that this advice was never
followed?

Shanti
Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Please reply to: jhe@koko.csustan.edu