Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00398)

Aug. 21st 1998

Friends Nicholas Weeks and Daniel Caldwell have advanced information as to
the existence of the Mahatmas.

Adding to Daniel Caldwell's comments, if one goes to volumes 9 and 10 of THE
PATH  we will find that Mr. Judge published a small series of articles under
the title :

    TESTIMONY AS TO MAHATMAS

Each one who gives testimony there, speaks for himself and the references
are:

PATH Vol. 9,   pp.  385,  424;

PATH Vol. 10, pp.   44,   127

A total of 23 individuals testify here.

The protection afforded to Prince Wittgenstein during the Crimean war by the
Mahatmas is alluded to in THEOSOPHIST Vol. 4, pp 141-2;  THST Vol. 5, pp
98-9.

Col.. Olcott writes extensively of his own experiences in OLD DIARY LEAVES.
Also there is an interesting reference in THEOSOPHIST, Vol. 6, p. 4

When in 1882, Mr. Hume wrote in derogation of the Mahatmas a number of
chelas wrote a protest.  This was published in the Supplement to the
THEOSOPHIST for October 1882 (Vol. 4).  Their signatures record those who
knew of the Mahatmas.

Another interesting reference will be found in THEOSOPHIST Vol. 4, pp 154,
and on pp.
157-8.

What else can be adduced ?

In Vol. 8 of the PATH, p. 1, is reproduced a copy of a document signed by
two of the Masters who there say they co-authored the SECRET DOCTRINE  with
HPB.  This was given to Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden and he in turn gave Mr. Judge a
copy.

We have THE MAHATMA LETTERS, as well as Letters or Notes from them published
in other places.  Taken as a whole there is a consistency and a coherence
that would imply a knowledge and an antiquity to Theosophical lore and study
that is staggering in itself.

A whole segment of information relating to the forces that operate from
inside matter and cause it to act is revealed.  It is interesting that after
100 years much of what was said in the  S D is being researched and
demonstrated by Science and Religious research in source documents.

In addition there are two series of Mahatma Letters reprinted under the
editorship of Mr. Jinarajadasa [ TPH, Adyar ] under the title LETTERS FROM
THE MASTERS OF WISDOM.  Among those will be found repeated to Col. Olcott
the statement that the S D is authored by Them in collaboration with HPB.

What kind of a list can we then produce?

Testimony :

>From HPB,  Col. Olcott,  W Q Judge, Sinnett,  W. T. Brown, Hartmann, Hume,
Prem Nath, Leadbeater, Mohini M. Chatterjee,  Harisinghji Rupsinghji
Maharaja of Bhawnagar, Damodar K. Mavlankar, S. Ramaswammiar, R. Keshava
Pillai, Dr. Hubbe Schleiden, B. K. Lahiri, Bhagavan Das Rao,  -- and many
others at that time and since.

But while this may be of interest to students of Theosophy, this does not
silence any of the skeptics.  I mean that want a "show me."  And do not wish
to do their own studying.

Perhaps the only consolation students will have to fall back on is the fact
that Theosophy proves itself by its eclecticism and depth.  There is no
where extant today any system that covers all areas of knowledge or present
a coherent philosophy of evolution such as it does.  Each one has to prove
this for themselves.  There is no substitute for a familiarity with what HPB
wrote and the Mahatmas taught and teach.

Best wishes,

Dallas

> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 12:36 PM
> From: "Daniel H Caldwell" <blafoun@azstarnet.com>
> Subject: Re: Composition vs. handwriting

>K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I know Theosophists believe that Vernon Harrison has "vindicated"
>> HPB, but he recoiled from that word when I asked him about it,
>> and said not at all-- he had simply demonstrated that Hodgson's
>> case against her was unproven.  I find the question of
>> handwriting rather irrelevant and uninteresting, since if I were
>> going to compose letters and attribute them to someone else, and
>> knew that people would suspect me of authorship, I'd certainly
>> not send them in my own handwriting.  And HPB was shrewder than
>> I.  The real question is not who physically wrote the versions
>> Sinnett received, but who composed the contents.  And Marion
>> Meade makes these telling (if not always entirely fair)
>> observations about K.H.'s letters:
>>
>> He does not, however, speak or write German, Punjabi, Hindi or
>> Tibetan; his Latin is faulty, his Sanskrit non-existent, his
>> French impeccable, his English queer.  He also has a habit of
>> overlining his m's, a mannerism of Russians writing in English or
>> French.  Although his letters are written in English, it is not
>> the English of an educated Indian and they sometimes falter in
>> the use of punctuation, spelling, and grammar.  For example, he
>> inserted commas between subject and predicate.  Worse yet, K.H.
>> is fond of American slang and his awkward sentence constructions
>> lead one to believe he is thinking in French but translating his
>> thoughts into English...[examples]
>>
>> K.H. is in semi-command of Western literature, science, and
>> philosophy.  He quotes Shakespeare correctly, and Swift
>> incorrectly, has a passing acquaintance with Thackeray, Tennyson
>> and Dickens, and keeps au courant by reading English novels.  "My
>> knowledge of your Western science is *very* limited," he insists,
>> which does not prevent him from aiming barbs at Darwin, Edison,
>> Tyndall, and some thirty others.  In personality, he was
>> alternately witty, stern, cheerful, spiteful, highly idealistic,
>> petty, and downright bitchy.  But he was always entertaining.
>>
>> p. 236, Mme. Blavatsky: The Woman Behind the Myth
>
>Daniel Caldwell replies:
>
>Concerning Paul Johnson's latest comments on the Mahatma Letters, much
>could be said on the subject.
>
>I will simply start by making one observation that everything Paul
>writes is very vague and in very general terms.  Details are what really
>counts in these issues.  Pages could be written analyzing what Marion
>Meade writes and determining whether what she asserts is true, false,
>inaccurate, whatever.  Although Meade's biography of HPB is very well
>written, the bio is full of errors.  A HUGE list of mistakes could be
>given documenting that she did not always do her homework, etc.  Just as
>I've published articles showing examples of Jean Overton Fuller's and K.
>Paul Johnson's sloppy research, I could do one also on Ms. Meade's bio.
>Here is just one GLARING mistake of many that could be cited:
>
>Marion Meade in her biography p. 497 writes
>
>"In all, about nine or ten persons testified to having seen the
>Mahatmas: Annie Besant, Henry Olcott, Damodar Mavalankar, Isabel
>Cooper-Oakley, William Brown, Nadyezhda Fadeyev, S.R. Ramaswamier,
>Justine Glinka and Vsevolod Solovyov. Franz Hartmann said that while he
>never actually saw them, he felt their presence."
>
>I remember reading this statement by Meade some fifteen years ago and
>exclaiming to myself, "Oh Marion Meade, you haven't done your homework!"
>Off the top of my head, I could count at least twenty-five people who
>testified to having seen the Mahatmas during H.P.B.'s lifetime. And
>despite Meade's statement to the contrary, Hartmann had testified that
>he had actually seen one of the Mahatmas. Apparently Meade had never
>carefully read two of the titles listed in her own bibliography:
>Geoffrey Barborka's The Mahatmas And Their Letters (1973) and Franz
>Hartmann's Report Of Observations, etc. (1884); both titles prove Meade
>didn't know what she was writing about concerning Hartmann.
>
>So the question I raise is:
>
>Has Johnson researched and verified what Marion Meade says about the
>Mahatma Letters or has he just accepted without investigation her
>chacracterization?
>
>Now let us leave Meade's bio and turn our attention to some of the
>latest of Paul Johnson's comments:
>
>>I find the question of
>> handwriting rather irrelevant and uninteresting, since if I were
>> going to compose letters and attribute them to someone else, and
>> knew that people would suspect me of authorship, I'd certainly
>> not send them in my own handwriting.  And HPB was shrewder than
>> I.  The real question is not who physically wrote the versions
>> Sinnett received, but who composed the contents.
>
>I find Paul's statement concerning "the question of handwriting rather
>irrelevant and uninteresting" somewhat amusing.  For more than 100 years
>most skeptics of Blavatsky have used Hodgson's charge that Blavatsky
>physically wrote most of the Mahatma Letters to paint her as a charlatan
>and declare that the Mahatmas were non-existent.  Now Paul comes along
>and finds this aspect of the case "rather irrelevant and uninteresting"?
>Maybe this issue is psychologically "uninteresting" to Paul so we won't
>pursue this aspect.  But I contend that the question of handwriting is
>not "irrelevant".  Both Dr. Harrison and Dr. Paul Kirk are of the
>professional opinion that Blavatsky did not write the KH letters. Then
>who did?
>
>Now let us get very specific and consider various historical incidents
>related to the Mahatma Letters.  I could bring up dozens of examples but
>will cite just one or two for those who are interested in *thinking
>through the subject* rather than just naively accepting or rejecting
>what Marion Meade and Paul Johnson assert about this subject.
>
>In October 1880 when Blavatsky, Olcott and their servant Babula was
>visiting Simla in northern India, the first Mahatma Letters were
>received (in Simla) by A.P. Sinnett.  Look at Mahatma Letters 1, 2, 3a,
>3b and 3c.  Who wrote these letters?  If one is inclined to think Madame
>Blavatsky somehow palmed these letters off on Sinnett, then who in the
>hell physically wrote them?  If it wasn't Blavatsky (as Johnson is
>currently contending) then was it Olcott or Babula?  Or does Johnson
>believe that there was some other unknown confederate lurking in the
>Simla bushes?  Who paid this confederate's salary?  And did this unknown
>confederate continue to write the letters over the next 4 and 1/2
>years?
>More specifically, on October 20, 1880, the "Pillow Incident" occurred
>in which Letter 3b and a brooch of Mrs. Sinnett's appeared in Mrs.
>Sinnett's jampan pillow.  No skeptic has ever convincingly explained how
>this trick was pulled off, if indeed it was but a trick.  Yet we have
>this Letter 3b.  I have a photocopy of it right before my eyes.  Who
>composed the words?  And who physically wrote each and every word in
>Letter 3b?  If Paul Johnson believes Blavatsky composed the words, who
>physically inscribed the words on the notepaper?  This is in the KH
>handwriting.  And how on earth did the letter get inside this pillow?
>This pillow, according to A.P. Sinnett, was in the drawing room the
>whole morning before the picnic.  One must read very carefully Sinnett's
>account to understand all the details surrounding this one letter (3b).
>See Sinnett's Occult World or my compilation THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME
>BLAVATSKY, pp. 134-138.
>
>The note found in the pillow reads:
>
>"My "Dear Brother,"
>
>This brooch No. 2 -- is placed in this very strange place simply to show
>to you how very easily a real phenomenon is
>produced and how still easier it is to suspect its genuineness. Make of
>it what you like even to classing me with confederates.
>
>The difficulty you spoke of last night with respect to the interchange
>of our letters I will try to remove. One of our pupils will
>shortly visit Lahore and the N.W.P. and an address will be sent to you
>which you can always use; unless, indeed, you really
>would prefer corresponding through -- pillows. Please to remark that the
>present is not dated from a "Lodge" but from a
>Kashmir valley.
>
>Yours, more than ever,
>
>Koot' Hoomi Lal Sing."
>
>Sinnet in his narrative writes:
>
>"On the hypothesis. . . that the cushion [pillow] must have been got at
>by Madame Blavatsky, it must have been got at since I spoke of my
>impressions that morning, shortly after breakfast. . . . [and no later
>than the time of the picnic when the note and brooch were found in the
>pillow."
>
>So for the skeptic who can't believe in psychic precipatation, etc, some
>person had to physically write this note, somehow physically insert it
>into the pillow (See Sinnett's narrative) and do all this BEFORE they
>went on the picnic.  This would have to have been done in Sinnett's
>house. Please note that the writer of this letter had to know that Mrs.
>Sinnett's jampan pillow cushion would LATER be selected as the place
>where the letter would be deposited (read the text of 3b). Even Olcott
>in his handwritten diary account (which has never been published) was
>amazed by this performance.
>
>So if Madame Blavatsky did not physically write the letter (as Johnson
>prefers to believe today) then that narrows down the number of options.
>That narrows it down to Olcott and Babula if we are looking for physical
>"confederates".  Unless Johnson and other skeptics want to hypothesize
>some other totally unknown person slipping in and out of Sinnett's
>house, etc.  But I have never heard from any skeptic (and I have known a
>good number) a reasonable explanation of how this letter got into the
>pillow by PHYSICAL means.  Yes, you can ignore the testimony of Sinnett
>(there are at least two accounts by him) and Olcott (there are 2
>accounts by him including the unpublished diary account).  But if you
>adopt this ploy here, then you can do so similarly with ANY account
>relating to ANYTHING in Madame Blavatsky's life.  Why consider evidence
>if you always push it aside when it conflicts with your background
>assumptions and beliefs?
>
>ONE MORE BRIEF EXAMPLE:  In March 1882 Madame Blavatsky was in Bombay.
>Sinnett was in Allahabad.  And Olcott was at a town located between
>Allahabad and Calcutta.  Please look at a map of India and the distances
>involved.  One morning Olcott got up and found on the table a letter
>from KH to Sinnett.  Olcott was instructed to send it on to
>Sinnett.  This has never been cited before.  It is to be found in
>Olcott's unpublished handwritten diary.  No writer including Olcott
>himself has ever published anything about the receipt of this particular
>Mahatma Letter.  I have identified which Mahatma Letter was involved in
>this incident.  Now who physically wrote this letter?  And who placed it
>on Olcott's table?  Blavatsky was literally on the other side of India
>at the time.  And Olcott was travelling alone.
>
>Let the wiggling and explaining away begin!
>
>{This is a rough draft.}
>
>
>