Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00396)

Subject: Guenon, Steiner, and Harison on HPB and Her Masters

BRUCE WROTE:

>. . . Rene Guenon in Le Theosophisme [wrote] "From all
>we have exposed it is legitimate to conclude that Mme.
>Blavatsky was above all a "subject" or instrument in
>the hands of individuals or occult groups sheltering
>behind her personality..."

DANIEL QUESTIONED:

> And I assume this is related to __________ ??????


BRUCE REPLIED:

>Well for start, he backs up independently,
>propositions by Steiner, Harrison and God
>knows who else. The fact is H.P.B. was
>decieved/tricked sometimes about the
>source of her material and therfore we
>cannot always take her words or the
>words of her teachers on this matter. Got it?

>P.S. I didn't say you had to agree with it!

DANIEL COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE AS
FOLLOWS:

Bruce, you say that Guenon "backs up INDEPENDENTLY,
propositions by Steiner, Harrison and God knows who
else" about HPB."

INDEPENDENTLY???

Guenon's book on Theosophy was first published in Paris
in 1921. Steiner's comments were made in 1915-1916 (or as
early as 1905-06?) and Harrison's lectures were given in 1893 and
published in 1894. Therefore, is it not possible that
both Steiner and Guenon simply read Harrison's book
and regurgitated the material with their own "additions"?

All three authors assert that THEY KNOW the "real" occult events
behind the outer historical scenes connected with H.P.
Blavatsky. But how do we know the truth of their statements?
They assume a SUPERIOR knowledge to HPB and her
Teachers. But did they really have SUCH knowledge?
Surely, you have every right to be critical and skeptical
of HPB's original claims, but are you also equally
critical and skeptical of Harrison's, Steiner's and
Guenon's claims? These three "occultists" claim
HPB was deluded in many things, but might they not
be the ones who were deluded about the very things
they write concerning HPB and her Teachers?

How many of their assertions can be verified or falsified
based on known historical facts? For example, Steiner
cannot correctly tell his audience what Colonel Olcott actually
wrote in his PEOPLE FROM THE OTHER WORLD. This
is just one example where his "knowledge" and/or
"clairvoyance" is put to the test and is shown to be plain wrong.

And yet you can write:

>The fact is H.P.B. was
>decieved/tricked sometimes about the
>source of her material and therfore we
>cannot always take her words or the
>words of her teachers on this matter.
Caps added.

THE FACT IS.........???????

We know next to nothing about Harrison himself
who apparently was the first person to speak about these
"novel facts" on HPB. Harrison's "knowledge"
is based on an "unnamed" informant.
One speculation is that this informant was C.C. Massey.
I believe John Cooper has disputed this speculation.
But even if the informant was Charles Carleton Massey,
what was the sources of his "information"?

Such assertions which are contradictory to the primary
source documents and even contrary to
known historical facts should not, in my estimation,
to considered FACTUAL. Interesting yes. . . but
not worthy of serious historical consideration
unless they can somehow be verified.

A few more points.

Pray tell, what would falsify for you these
assertions by Harrison and Company?

And why do you ASSUME these Harrison assertions are true
while the statements by Blavatsky and her Teachers
are false?

Maybe Blavatsky and her "Teachers" were
deluded or even lying, but maybe Harrison and Company
were ALSO deluded or lying.

In other words, how can you distinguish between the so-called
TRUTH and DELUSION concerning this apect of HPB's
life?

Sorry for the rough draft nature of the above, but would
take too much time to polish up.

As you said in one of your earlier postings,
"You can take or leave it."

(to be continued in Part II. . . . )

Daniel