Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00443)

Daniel wrote:

>> 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.

Bruce commented:

>There are three possilbities
>1 He was wrong on this- which does not discount the rest of the material.
>2 The passage was removed after the first edition. A practice not uncommon
>in Theosophical books.
> 3 There was a transcription error in the shorthand notes taken at the
>lecture and not reviewed by the lecturer.

Daniel replies:

Concerning (2)" the passage was removed". The passage was not removed.
The first edition (1875) of People from the Other World does NOT have what
Steiner said it did. As far as I know all reprints of the 1875 first edition
are verbatim with that first edition. Here we can verify in the physical
that Steiner was wrong on this point.

Concerning (3), does Harrison say the same thing as Steiner; or is
this an original assertion by Steiner?

Again, Bruce, why do you prefer the assertions of Steiner and Company to
those of Blavatsky and her Teachers? Maybe Blavatsky and her Adepts were
right and Steiner, Harrison and Guenon were just plain wrong. You have every
right to believe as you see fit. That is not my point. My point is why do you
believe? What is your reasoning on this matter?


Daniel wrote:

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

Bruce commented:

>One cannot in this day and age base written works solely on authorities.
>The truth is neither you nor I know the true course of these events. That
>does not mean that some enlightened souls may.
>Just because a piece of literature has "by a Great Master" written on it
>doesn't mean we roll over and play dead. The use of the names K.H., M, Maha
>Chohan and Saint Germain is now degraded, they're only dragged out to put a
>stamp of authority on written works or someone's actions, one which we
>should all be careful of.


Daniel replies:

But pray tell how do we determine the true course
of these events? I would prefer to consider FIRST the primary source
documents written by those who were actually there at the time. These
are the historical documents actually written by the participants.

As far as I know Harrison, Steiner and Guenon were NOT there. What
are their sources of information? Can we verify their assertions on the
matter? I'm not saying we should a prior reject what they write.

As far as your comments on "the use of the names K.H., M, Maha Chohan and
Saint Germain", I couldn't agree more but I am talking about the *original*
sources on these Masters. Why believe what Steiner and company say about
these Masters, while at the same time doubting the *original* material about
these Adepts?

More to follow