Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00114)

The first copy of the below post had lots of numbers in places where there
should have been quotation marks and apostrophes!  Hoping this copy will be
more readable.  Sorry.  DHC.

ROUGH DRAFT OF MY COMMENTS
ON PUBLICATION OF THE MAHATMA LETTERS
AND THE ESOTERIC WRITINGS.


I must say that I agree completely with what Jerry HE said about the Mahatma
Letters and the Esoteric Writings of HPB.  Therefore I won"t go over that
ground again but will add some additional points and evidence that readers
on Theos-l (as well as Correspondents A and B) may not be aware of.

Reference is made by Correspondent B to the fact that one of the Masters
(K.H. in particular) wrote the following concerning the publication of his
own letters and notes to Sinnett:

"The letters, in short, were not written for publication or public comment
upon them, but for private use, and neither M. nor I would ever give our
consent to see them thus handled."  (Mahatma Letter No. 63 in the first 3
editions.  One should read the whole letter from which I have quoted in
order to see the context in which those words were made.)

But there is another letter from the Mahatma K.H. which throws additional
light on the issue of publishing the letters from the Masters.  In the
summer of 1884, Mohini Chatterji and Laura C. Holloway were writing a book
on Theosophy entitled *Man:  Fragments of Forgotten History*.  Both Mohini
and Laura were chelas of  K.H.  In a letter addressed to Mohini, Master K.H.
wrote:

"You may, if you choose so, or find necessity for it, use in "Man" [the
above titled book] or in any other book you may chance to be collaborating
for, anything I may have said in relation to our secret doctrines in any of
my letters to Messrs. Hume or Sinnett.  Those portions that were private
have never been allowed by them to be copied by anyone; and those which are
so copied have by the very fact become theosophical property.  Besides,
copies of my letters---at any rate those that contained my
*teachings*---have always been sent by my order to Damodar and Upasika
[HPB], and some of the portions even used in the *Theosophist*.  You are at
liberty to even copy them *verbatim* and without quotation marks....Thus not
only you, a chela of mine, but anyone else is at liberty to take anything,
whole pages, if thought proper, from any of my "copied" letters and
 convert
their "dross" into pure ore of gold, provided they have well grasped the
thought.  Show this to L.C.H. who was already told the same."  Letter 39 in
*Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series*.

It should also be noted that a great deal of the *teaching * letters from
K.H. and M. were quoted in the following books published in the 1880s:

*The Occult World* by A.P. Sinnett.  (First edition published 1881)

*Esoteric Buddhism* by A.P. Sinnett.  (First edition published 1883)

*The Occult World* by A.P.S.  See 4th English edition, 1884, Appendix, pp.
145-149 for an additional KH letter.

*Man:  Fragments of Forgotten History* by Two Chelas [Chatterji and
Holloway) (First edition, published 1885)

*The Secret Doctrine* by H.P. Blavatsky.  (First published 1888).  See
especially Vol. I where HPB quotes from several of KH"s letters to
 Sinnett.

In additional to the above books, excerpts from the Masters letters were
published in various articles in *The Theosophist* (1881-1883).

Also W.J. Judge published lengthy extracts from K.H."s letters to Sinnett
dealing with Kamaloka and Devachan.  See *The Path*, August, 1889, Nov.,
1889, May, 1890 and June, 1890.  These articles have been reprinted by The
Theosophy Company, LA, in their compilation *Theosophical Articles and
Notes*, 1985, pp. 236-247.

HPB also quoted extracts from KH"s Letters to Sinnett in the pages of=
 *Lucifer*.

Judge published the Prayag Letter [also contained in *The Mahatma Letters to
A.P. Sinnett." in *The Path* in the early 1890s.

Etc., etc.

It would be an interesting exercise to take a copy of *The Mahatma Letters
to A.P. Sinnettt" and underline in red all the passages that have been
published in the above sources.

Directing attention back to KH"s letter to Mohini in which mention is made
of the "copied letters" which have "become theosophical property",
Francesca Arundale, an early Theosophist, had "three manuscript books" of
"these early teachings" from the Masters.  Evidence indicates that Sinnett
copied these "teachings" from the letters of the Masters and sent them to
London for the benefit of Arundale and other students of Theosophy.  These
"teaching letters" as found in Arundale"s manuscript books were eventually
published by C. Jinarajadasa in 1923 under the title *The Early Teachings of
the Masters 1881------1883*.  This book by Jinarajadasa was published some
 months
before A. Trevor Barker published the complete collection of letters from
the Masters K.H. and M. in London in Dec. 1923.

In the light of the above historical facts, would Correspondent B and U.L.T.
associates be willing to study *The Early Teachings of the Masters*?  Would
they be willing to publicly circulate this volume by Jinarajadasa or a
similarly compiled work?

Now another issue.  Correspondent B mentions that he has read the Mahatma
Letters.  And he also admits that U.L.T. Associates privately read and study
the Letters.  BUT if we are to take literally and at face value  the Master
K.H."s prohibition on the publishing of the letters in their entirety,
 then
once Correspondent B or any U.L.T. associate reads this prohibition, would
not reason and logic dictate that they should close the book and never pick
The Mahatma Letters up again?  As H.N. Stokes once wrote about this very
subject, "If *The Mahatma Letters* are private documents today, no one
without a diploma of sanctity and a special permit from the Mahatmas is more
entitled to read them than any others."

Speaking of H.N. Stokes, the editor of the *O.E. Library Critic*
(Washington, D.C.), Dr. Stokes wrote at least two articles on the U.L.T."s
attitude toward *The Mahatma Letters."  The articles are:

"Is the U.L.T. Boycotting The Mahatma Letters?"  (*O.E. Library
 Critic*,
April, 1934.)

"Magazine Theosophy Places The Mahatma Letters on U.L.T. Index
Expurgatorius."
(*O.E. Library Critic*, May-June, 1935.

Stokes notes that soon after *The Mahatma Letters" were first published in
London in Dec., 1923, *Theosophy* Magazine (the L.A.-based U.L.T.
periodical) "hailed" the publication of these Letters as follows:

"These *Letters*  are, beyond all question the one great and final
contribution to Theosophical literature and history since the *Secret
Doctrine.*   They solve the hitherto baffling and inscrutable mysteries in
connection with the public course of the Movement, by bringing to light the
missing links of its degradation through theosophists, theosophical
societies, and the world at large....Let all true Theosophists rejoice at
the light that is now shed on the dark places of the past and present." (
*Theosophy*, March, 1924)

But Stokes points out that four U.L.T. magazines (including *Theosophy*) had
the practice of quoting from *The Mahatma Letters*  but never telling their
readers that they were quoting from the book entitled *The Mahatma Letters
to A.P. Sinnettt*.  Stokes found that in the years 1928-1933, these four
U.L.T. magazines had quoted 87 times from the Letters.  Stokes writes:

"Of the 87 quotations from *The Mahatma Letters* only one gives
reference; the others afford not the slightest clue to the source, not the
slightest possibility of the student locating it without laborious search.
He is not even permitted to know the existence of such a book as *The
Mahatma Letters*." (*O.E. Library Critic*, April, 1934.)

In the other article cited above, Stokes discusses an article published in
*Theosophy* Magazine for February, 1935.  The anonymous U.L.T. associate
writes for two or three pages on the *Mahatma Letters* but then concludes:

"All that is taught in the Letters is contained in *The Secret
Doctrine*...and is there presented in proper form for students under the
direct instruction and sponsoring of the Mahatmas themselves.  The
publication of the Mahatma Letters in violation of Their own injunction, and
recourse to these Letters [by Theosophical students] instead of to *The
Secret Doctrine* for instruction in Occultism, shows the difference  between
true and false psychology.  Mr. Sinnett"s use of the Letters was such as
 to
close to him the door opened via H.P.B. with the Mahatmas:  What will be the
effect of the unlawful publication and use of them thus made possible to so
many hopeless Incurables in the Mysteries?"

Stokes points out that several of the assertions made in this quotation are
not true.  Stokes goes on to say:

"But when the *Theosophy* writer speaks of "false psychology" and of
"hopeless Incurables in the Mysteries" one is prompted to ask whether
 these
rather strong terms do not apply to himself.  He is constantly referring in
these articles to *The Mahatma Letters*.  Consequently he must have read
them.  If so, why does he do that which he thinks it improper for others to
do because of their private nature?   And why did the magazine *Theosophy*
in its series [of articles] later published as *The Theosophical Movement*
[in 1925 as a book] constantly quote from documents [written by HPB and]
marked private and issued to E.S.T. members under pledge of secrecy?  Are we
to suppose that this anonymous writer, or the editors of *Theosophy*, are
above all rules applying to lesser mortals?  No, what is sauce for the goose
is sauce for the gander.  If
*The Mahatma Letters* are private documents today, no one without a diploma
of sanctity and a special permit from the Mahatmas is more entitled to read
them than any others, or to discourage others from doing what he does
himself when it suits his purpose....Sensible students will not be deterred
by talk from those who do not practise what they preach."  (*O.E. Library
Critic*, May-June, 1935.

In the above quote from Stokes, he refers to the book *The Theosophical
Movement* issued by the top officials of the U.LT., Los Angeles, CA.  In
Chapter XI  ("Work of the Esoteric Section", pp. 163-177) of this book, the
anonymous author(s) quote(s) from two of HPB"s E.S. documents which were
marked:  "strictly private and confidential".  The author of this chapter
writes:  "Permissible extracts from the *Preliminary Memorandum* to the E.S.
applicants show her esoteric treatment."  Then long extracts are given
 from
this E.S. document.  Permissible extracts?  Who gave the writer of this
chapter permission to quote from HPB"s "strictly private and confidential"
paper?  This is not discussed in the pages of *The Theosophical Movement*.

Jerry HE brings up the fact that Judge in an E.S.T. document of Dec., 1894
"declassifed" HPB"s E.S. Instructions.  As soon as I find it in my file, I
will post this Judge document on Theos-l.  Permissible extracts only, of
 course!

Thanks to everyone who gave their two cents on these topics.  I am hoping
Eldon T. and Rich T. will share their thoughts on all of this on Theos-l.

Daniel H. Caldwell