Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00719)

Paul K. has limited his scenario's as to the fallibility of the teachings of 
the Masters to three. A fourth is that the Masters were Mme Blavatsky's 
Guides or Communicators.
I do not think that the enquirer into the possible identity of the so-called 
Masters can do without a study of Spiritualism, channeling, multiple 
personalities and all that.
One cannot ignore the fact that Mme.Blavatsky had been deeply involved in 
Spiritualism. She may have renounced it for good reasons, but whether she 
could control her mediumistic faculties is another matter. The Hare 
Brothers, Gertrude Williams and other commentators have drawn attention to 
the development of the Mahatma letters from the primitive epistels of Tuitit 
Bey from the Observatory of Luxor (TRY!), who seem obviously a foreplay for 
the later far more sophisticated Mahatma letters. 
Anyone familiar with spirititistic communications  cannot be but struck by 
the familiar authority in which these "entities" always present themselves 
(Seth). (In fact the inspiration of Biblical prophets by a communicator 
calling himself  "Jahwe" should be seen in the same light.)
Whether these manifesting personalities are part of the psyche of the medium 
or represent actual discarnated spirits is difficult to say. Anyhow, they 
seem often to bear resemblance to the medium.
If one studies these communications through the past 150 years one thing 
becomes clear, they hardly tell anything new. They represent always the way 
of thinking of their times. Striking is their moralistic and didactical 
tone, the temporariness of their teachings and the fallibility of their 
predictions.
Or as PAUL K' states:"Find me evidence of any real spiritual Master of the 
19th century who knew the truth unveiled by 20th century science.". One 
could extend this to spiritistic communicators as well, who also made the 
sitters believe that they were of high origin, Jesus Himself, Buddha, etc 
etc. Especially remarkable is the changing identity towards figures that had 
an appeal in their time. The emergence of ufonauts as communicators, 
practically absent in 19th century Spiritualism, dominate the 
post-WW2-channeling scene. After Einstein multi-dimensional personalities 
emerged (Seth). It is remarkable that these subjects were almost ignored by 
the Masters.

Then there is the development of the handwriting and grammar (Russian 
grammatical mistakes). Admittedly many were explained by her, but rather 
inconvincingly.
Apparently under influence of Mme.Blavatsky's later hostility towards 
Spiritualism and the "empty shell" nature of its communicators, faithful 
Theosophists have shied away from studying the history of Spiritualism with 
an open mind.

>"I suspect that somewhere in Tibet some individuals are right now having a 
good >laugh", wrote Paul.
There is little reason for laughter over there, but whether there is a 
Master amongst them, is even more doubtful.
It seems to me naive to surmise that there are such individuals in Tibet, 
unless one attaches any credence to the fantasies in Paul Baird's: Masters 
of Wisdom.
I have met a number of Tibetan monks, some from the inner circle of the 
Dalai Lama. I was always tempted to tell them about the Theosophic Masters 
and to ask their opinion. Invariably my account was met by laughter and 
amusement that Westerners could be kidded into believing that such beings 
ever existed in Tibet.

ERNEST EGERTON WOOD. 
Are the enquirers familiar with his disillusioned book: Is this Theosophy? 
In 1936 he writes: "I learned to detest theosophical politics, with their 
hiding of everything that does not redound to the credit of those in power 
and their perpetual circles of mutual admiration, but I was left with a high 
regard for the theosophists scattered over the world as a lovable - albeit 
most innocent and childlike - body of people."

MICHAEL  R.