Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00407)

Regarding the 1900 letter:

Sy Ginsberg writes:

>Can any of you tell me what is the source for the complete text
>of the 1900 letter including the blocked out text as put on
>Theos-L above, and is this generally accepted by Theosophical
>historians to be correct?  The effort to insert the blocked out
>portions is obviously important. But in looking at the photo
>plate in the Barborka book, some of the allegedly missing words
>which are inserted in the above text do not appear to fit quite
>accurately into the context of the photo plate.

JHE
The source of the complete text is the original text in the
archives of the Theosophical Society in Adyar.

The blocked out text was originally published in THE THEOSOPHIST
by Jinarajadasa.  This was done during the time of the Hare
Brother's accusations that the Mahatma letters were fraudulent.
Jinarajadasa published a photographic copy of the letter in its
blocked out form, in order to counter the Hare criticisms.

The complete text was first published in the ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST
in 1987 and it is indeed an authentic transcription of the
original.  I am not aware of any historians who question the
authenticity of the transcription.

SG
>For example, in the photo plate, following the words "How few
>they are who can know anything about us", these words appear ,
>"Are we to be propitiated...."  I do not find these words in the
>above text posted to Theos-L, so it would appear to me that
>neither the above text, nor what is on the photo plate in the
>Barborka book are complete.

JHE
Try going back to the photo copy in THE THEOSOPHIST, and compare
it with the transcription in the ECLECTIC.  It works.

SG
>Where is the complete text?

JHE
The original?  It is still in Adyar.  The transcription?  It was
published in the Sept-Oct 1987 issue of the ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST.

SG
And is it authenticated?

JHE
The transcription?  By whom?  How?  If you are asking whether
Adyar has acknowledged the authenticity of a letter they did not
want the membership to see in the first place: no, they have not.
The Original?  Jinarajadasa evidently thought it to be authentic.
But the authenticity of all of the Mahatma Letters is a disputed
issue.

By the way, who was so crass as to register a copyright on this
letter?



Regarding Krishnamurti:

Einar wrote:
>That JK may have slipped from his own standards I don't know,
>but I think the point might be that he may have slipped a little
>from OUR standards, and that relay hurts, doesn't it?

JHE
Personally, I don't have a "standard" for a spiritual leader's
sex life--not even the "world teacher's."  Rather, I'm happy for
him that he had the affair.  It gave him a common ground of
experience with the rest of humanity--an important thing for a
spiritual teacher.  OTOH I would think it more prudent to have
such experiences with someone who is not married, and I
personally feel that abortions are too high of a cost for this
kind of behavior.  But these are my values, not his.
      From another perspective, I remember hearing Krishnamurti in
Krotona lecturing to the unmarried younger people in the crowd
not to get sexually involved.  From one point of view, K was
speaking from the wisdom of experience, but his audience didn't
know that.  If he had shared with the audience that he was not
celibate, his message would not have had such a hollow ring to
me.  I would guess that most of his audience thought of him as
someone who was above all of this, and he said nothing to dispel
this belief.  To me, K's affair is not problematical because it
might have violated my standards of sexual behavior, but because
it violated the standards I heard him preach to others.  I call
this hypocrisy.
      For whatever it is worth, my own conclusions are that K. was
an ordinary man who was believed by many to be a world teacher.
Therefore he was forced to lead a duplicitous life in order to
avoid creating undesirable publicity for KFA.

Ramadoss Wrote:
>PS: As Lutyens points out, is it reasonable for any one expect
>to K to have gone out and brag about Rosalind being his
>mistress.

JHE
Of course not.  It is reasonable for a human being *not* to
discuss their actions that would bring embarrassment to
themselves and others involved.  OTOH, it is also reasonable for
public figures to try to avoid situations that have the potential
of bringing embarrassment upon themselves and others.  But public
figures don't always do reasonable things: do they?
Ramadoss
>When TS was started and HPB and HSO were "selected", you will
>see that they were not the "ideal" models acceptable to the
>standards of the day.  Even HSO admitted that he "was" a man of
>the world interested in bars and women when he got interested in
>Theosophy. No one made much fuss about his background at that
>time.

JHE
Are you suggesting that because Blavatsky and Olcott might not
have been "`ideal' models" justifies Krishnamurti's actions?  Or,
are you suggesting that because no one "made a fuss" about
Olcott's background, we therefore should not make a fuss about
Krishnamurti?

Alan Bain wrote:
>The important thing, IMO, after having viewed the evidence and
>the claims and the teachings in their various forms, is the
>validity or otherwise of the teaching itself.

JHE
Agreed.

By the way, for those interested in a copy of this book, I have a
few copies of the original Bloomsbury edition of this book on
hand.  $25.00 each.