Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00074)

In message <327D3787.6DDA@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky
<bartl@sprynet.com> writes
>Dr. A.M.Bain wrote:
>>
>> The production of the letters has been discussed rather
>> extensively and much of the evidence points out to the non-authenticity
>> of the letters.  Many who have studied them suspect the direct hand of
>> HPB in the production of certainly some of them.
>
>       Who is this "most"?

Who said "most?"  Not in your quote above.

> Certainly not the modern handwriting experts and
>style analysts, who, almost unanimously, state that HPB could NOT have
>been the author, and that that Hodgson report was made up entirely from
>biased sources. Note that the people who Hodgson used to claim that
>Blavatsky's handwriting matched that of the Mahatma's NEVER SAW A SINGLE
>DOCUMENT THAT BLAVATSKY POSITIVELY WROTE, only a set of documents that
>Blavatsky claimed to be forgeries.  And they never saw the actual
>Mahatma letters, only hand-drawn copies prepared by Hodgson.
>
>       This is not to say that the Mahatmas are who they say they are, simply
>that Blavatsky was NOT the one who wrote the letters.
>
>       Bart Lidofsky

I get your point, but I did not write the above, but quoted (I think)
Mark, so you would have to ask him for his sources.  By the same token,
I for one would ask you for yours.

I know little of this particular controversy, though I have heard of
Hodgson via other historical material.  Clearly you are writing as if to
someone who is well acquainted with the business, which I am not, except
insofar as I know there were/are disputes over the authenticity of the
letters.

In one sense it is not too important, as such letters would best be
considered on the merits of their content, whoever wrote them.

In another sense it *is* important if it establishes doubt as to the
integrity of people who offered them as some kind of revelatory
material.  If HPB did this - but the letters are not addressed to her -
then her integrity as a source of wisdom comes into question, if they
are in whole or in part the product of her own hand.

I repeat to you as to others:

I do not know all the ins and outs of this debate.  A list subscriber
has raised them who is clearly of the opinion, received or otherwise,
that there was deception involved.

So what are the claims and counterclaims?  Is there any reason why they
cannot be put forward on the list by people who have some experience of
the matter, so that we can be seen to give expression to the motto:

"There is no religion higher than truth."

So you see, I am still no further forward in my search for a reply.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk