{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/mahatma-letters/03-the-writing-of-the-mahatma-letters-at-barker.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "mahatma-letters",
    "name": "Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett"
  },
  "parents": [],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 2,
    "slug": "03-the-writing-of-the-mahatma-letters-at-barker",
    "title": "The Writing of the Mahatma Letters (A.T. Barker)",
    "of": 10,
    "words": 1377,
    "text": "## The Writing of the Mahatma Letters (A.T. Barker)\n\n\n#### The Writing of the Mahatma Letters\n\n###### By A. Trevor Barker\n\n{The following article by A. Trevor Barker originally appeared\nin the January 1938 issue of *The English Theosophical Forum*, London,\nEngland. It is included herein because of its intrinsic value to students of\n*The Mahatma Letters.}*\n\nI have received a number of requests to publish a reply to two questions that\nare asked by students over and over again, and these questions may be formulated\nas follows:\n\nIn your Introduction to *The Mahatma Letters* you refer to the letters\nas having been signed by the Masters with their own hands. You may or may\nnot have intended this to be taken literally, but a careful study of the\nletters in the opinion of many intelligent people reveals that some of the\nletters seem to drop below the standard that one would attribute to a supramundane\nor Mahatmic intelligence. What is the explanation for this if the Mahatmas\nM. and K.H. were actually responsible for them?\n\nThe only satisfactory way of answering these very important questions is to see\nwhat H.P.B. and the Masters themselves had to say upon the subject. As a matter\nof fact the Mahatmas M. and K.H. did not use their high intelligence to supervise\nthe whole process of transmitting quite a number of these letters. This H.P.B.\nstates quite clearly on page 480 {Letter 140}of *The Mahatma Letters*\nin these words:\n\nHas Master K.H. written himself all *His* letters? How many chelas\nhave been precipitating and writing them — heaven only knows.\n\nThe Master himself writes on page 232 {Letter 30}:\n\nIn noticing M⸫’s opinion of yourself expressed in some of his letters — (you\nmust not feel altogether so sure that because they are in *his* handwriting,\nthey are written by him, though of course every word is sanctioned by him\nto serve certain ends) —  . . .\n\nTo understand the problem properly the whole of Letter 140 (pp. 478-81) should\nbe read carefully and in addition pp. 470-1 and 422-6 {Letters 138 and 93}.\nIn order to save space we only print the more important passages, and draw the\nreader’s attention particularly to the following on page 422 {Letter 93}:\n\nThe letter in question was framed by me while on a journey and on horseback.\nIt was dictated mentally, in the direction of, and “precipitated” by, a young\nchela not yet expert at this branch of Psychic chemistry, and who had to transcribe\nit from the hardly visible imprint. Half of it, therefore, was omitted and the\nother half more or less distorted by the “artist.” When asked by him at the\ntime, whether I would look it over and correct I answered, imprudently, I confess — “anyhow\nwill do, my boy — it is of no great importance if you skip a few words.” I was\nphysically very tired by a ride of 48 hours consecutively, and (physically again) — half\nasleep. Besides this I had very important business to attend to *psychically*\nand therefore little remained of me to devote to that letter. It was doomed,\nI suppose. When I awoke I found it had already been sent on, and, as I was not\nthen anticipating its publication, I never gave it from that time a thought.\n\nThen:\n\nTwo factors are needed to produce a perfect and instantaneous mental telegraphy — close\nconcentration in the operator, and complete receptive passivity in the “reader”-subject.\nGiven a disturbance of either condition, and the result is proportionately\nimperfect. The “reader” does not see the image as in the “telegrapher’s”\nbrain, but as arising in his own. When the latter’s thought wanders, the\npsychic current becomes broken, the communication disjointed and incoherent.\nIn a case such as mine, the chela had, as it were, to pick up what he could\nfrom the current I was sending him and, as above remarked, patch the broken\nbits together as best he might. . . .\n\nWell, as soon as I heard of the charge — the commotion among my *defenders*\nhaving reached me across the eternal snows — I ordered an investigation\ninto the original scraps of the impression. At the first glance I saw that\nit was I, the only and most guilty party, — the poor little boy having done\nbut that which he was told.\n\nand later on the same page:\n\nI transcribe them with my own hand this once, whereas the letter in your\npossession was written by the chela. I ask you also to compare this handwriting\nwith that of some of the *earlier letters* you received from me.\nBear in mind, also the “O.L.’s” emphatic denial at Simla that my *first*\nletter had ever been written *by myself*. I felt annoyed at her gossip\nand remarks *then*; it may serve a good purpose *now*. \n\nThese passages from *The Mahatma Letters* prove and confirm H.P.B.'s statement\nin the letter quoted above from Letter 140.\n\nIn a letter to me on this subject Dr. de Purucker expressed himself as follows:\n\nH.P.B. stated specifically, and more than once, that it was the rarest thing\nin the world for any one of the Mahatmans, or even for a high chela, *\npersonally to write* a letter, i.e. indite any communication with his\nown hand. There are very, very few, very rare exceptions, such as one or\ntwo, it may be three, cases of direct precipitation from the Master or from\na high chela, and possibly one or two brief notes, maybe a telegram or two,\nwritten by the Master's own hand. H.P.B. states positively that not only\nwas such writing in the Master's own hand the rarest thing, but that practically\nin every case, with the few exceptions named, the Master *impressed*\nmentally his chela or amanuensis, or chelas or amanuenses, to write thus\nor so, to such or another person. Then the chela, *if* the receptivity\nwas good, would get the message clearly from the Master's mind along the\netheric currents, and in writing it down, if the receptivity was perfect\nthe resulting production would be practically the Master's own words, and\nactually his own handwriting, real or adopted — whichever Master it\nmight be who was the source, K.H. or M. or some other. If receptivity on\nthe part of the chela or amanuenses was less perfect, there would be the\nimmediate entrance into the psychology of the receiving chela of more or\nless, usually less, of the chela's own mental idiosyncrasies, ways of phrasing,\nwhat Hodgson and the Hare brothers call Americanisms or Gallicisms, etc.,\netc.\n\nThe writing of these letters was a mystery and must remain so for all but the\ninitiates. The last passage we quote however could hardly be more definite.\n\nAnother of our customs, when corresponding with the outside world, is to\nentrust a chela with the task of delivering the letter or any other message;\nand if not absolutely necessary — to never give it a thought. Very\noften our very letters — unless something very important and secret —\nare written in our handwritings by our chelas. Thus, last year, some of\nmy letters to you were *precipitated*, and when sweet and easy precipitation\nwas stopped — well I had but to compose my mind, assume an easy position,\nand — think, and my faithful \"Disinherited\" had but to copy\nmy thoughts, making only occasioally a blunder. — p. 296\n\nIn conclusion if it is contended that it would have been better if I had not\nstated in the Introduction that the letters were written by the Masters in their\nown hands, I agree. When I wrote that sentence I had not had time to assimilate\nfully the whole content of the letters, and therefore this particular aspect\nof the matter had not clearly taken shape in my consciousness. One of these\ndays, when a new issue is being printed, it can be corrected.\n\nThe above explanation should be sufficient to clear up this problem, for any\nserious student who will take the trouble to read carefully the page references\ngiven to *The Mahatma Letters.*\n\n---\n\nA. O. Hume's Full Reply to K.H.'s 1st Letter\n\n---\n\n####### Theosophical University Press Online Edition",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}