Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00567)

According to Paul M.M. Kieniewicz:
> 
> The fact that the Mahatma letters echo so much of 19th century science
> argues against them having been written by Masters -- who ought to know
> better.

Find me evidence of any *real spiritual Master* of the 19th
century who knew the truths unveiled by 20th century science--
and I'll grant your point.  Otherwise, I think your definition of
"Master" needs some grounding in historical reality.  A person can
be a recognized authority in an esoteric tradition, one
qualified to teach others, without therefore knowing everything
there is to know.  Your argument as stated would seem to rule
out the existence of any spiritual Masters in the 19th century.  Isn't it
more plausible to recognize that indeed there were, but
that their knowledge was not quite as extensive as described in
Theosophical literature?

 If a writer of these letters is castigating Sinnett and contemporary
> scientists for THEIR poor understanding of science, then if he is a Master,
> you'd think he ought to know. If on the otherhand, what he writes turns out
> to be  bullshit, then chances are he isn't a Master. 
> 
> Paul K.
>  
Not a Master of Science, at least.