Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00303)

Brigitte writes [see her complete posting at the end of this email]
that:

" Already during Blavatsky's lifetime Hartman revealed part of the 
true nature of the 'Theosophical Masters' [in Hartmann's novel THE 
TALKING IMAGE OF URUR]."

Notice that this is Brigitte's assessment that Hartmann is revealing 
the TRUE NATURE of HPB's Masters.

But even IF WE ACCEPT this assumption by Brigitte, there are several 
more questions to ask if we are actually thinking thru the issues and 
not just blindly accepting the assumptions made by Brigitte.

(1) What is Hartmann's exact source of knowledge concerning the TRUE 
nature of the Masters?

(2) What does Hartmann know from his own experience that would give 
him some special insight into these matters?

(3) Or is Hartmann's just giving his opinion, his interpretation 
which may or may not be correct?

In other words, Brigitte is making alot of assumptions and piling 
them one upon the other. The inquiring reader will stop and ask alot 
of relevant questions about all of these assumptions.

Now what does Hartmann write about the Theosophical Masters and HPB 
AFTER he wrote his novel? That is a question that needs to be 
answered.

See what Hartmann wrote in his serial articles titled "Memorable 
Recollections from the life of the author of the 'Lotusblüten.'"
See: http://blavatskyarchives.com/hartmannmr.htm
and http://blavatskyarchives.com/hartmannmr2.htm

This series of articles was writter AFTER HPB died and AFTER Hartmann 
published his novel which Brigitte wants to give such importance to.

In part II of this article as published at BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES, 
Hartmann wrote:

"Now one can who is not a completely perfect human being, e.g., the 
pupil of a Master, be sent into the world with a similar purpose: to 
embody themselves with their master and be embodied as an inhabitant 
of the spirit world as with this one and enter into a connection and 
be directed by him. This was in fact the case with H. P. Blavatsky. 
As a child she already had astonished her acquaintances with her 
mystical abilities and from her earliest youth on she had been 
supervised and instructed by the adept. She had an active life moving 
about and was coming and going on journeys to countries which 
Europeans rarely set foot on. She had come in touch with various 
mystics and adepts in Egypt, Asia and South America, had personally 
learned to know her own chief and teacher, had worked through 
orthodoxy and spiritualism and ultimately became ripe to proclaim to 
the world the great knowledge of religion, which is so clearly 
presented in her 'Secret Doctrine' and her other writings. In this 
way she came to be an apostle of enlightenment, as there has been 
before her only few and there will be after her no doubt only few, an 
incomprehensible riddle for the scholars of this world who know 
nothing of divine existence and who was first pronounced by them as 
the 'sphinx of the nineteenth century' and then declared a 'fraud.' "

Maybe here Hartman is revealing the TRUE nature of the adepts?

Furthermore, what does Hartmann write in his 1908 article in THE 
OCCULT REVIEW that might be relevant to the subject under 
discussion? We could cite other Hartmann articles that were written 
in the 1890s and early 1900s.

Brigitte says nothing about any of this.

In summary, Brigitte wants to ignore what Hartmann wrote in his 
various [non-fiction] accounts about HPB and the Masters. Instead 
she wants to focus attention on what Hartmann wrote in a novel. She 
is the one to assume that Hartmann tells the real truth about the 
adepts in this work of fiction. I guess she also assumes that what 
Hartmann wrote in his non-fictional accounts about HPB and the 
Masters are fictional!!

Daniel
http://hpb.cc


 
Brigitte wrote:
> Below the essential message from : Hartmann's The Talking Image of 
> Urur.
> 
> Already during Blavatsky's lifetime Hartman revealed part of the 
> true nature of the "Theosophical Masters".
> In the parts of "Talking Image of Urur"(1889) that where 
published 
> by Blavatsky in Lucifer, it describes a "Mysterious Brotherhood's" 
> best known members as "Rataborumatchi and Krashibashi", plus 
> the "talking image"(apparently HPB) that, "reflects like a mirror 
the 
> prejudices of the inquirerrs and merely confirms their 
> superstitions"...
> Hartmann proceeds that: "No man can teach another the truth if the 
> truth does not manifest itself in and through him." But, "what 
about 
> the about the Mysterious Brotherhood?" asked Pancho (apparently 
> Hartmann himself): "He received no answer.-before his eyes a great 
> transformation took place--there was notting of a material 
character 
> left." (more excerpts will follow soon)
> 
> In March 1889 Blavatsky wrote an article for Lucifer entitled "On 
> Pseudo-Theosophy" in wich she responded to a "Daily News" story 
about 
> Hartmann's story. The newspaper reported that some Theosophists 
were 
> distressed by its publication, and suggested that "the misgivings 
> that have been awakened will not easily be laid to rest." 
> Blavatsky replies that it is precicely in order to awaken 
misgivings 
> in those who should recognize themselves in Hartman's tale that 
she  
> publishing it. But although some where offended , Blavatsky 
> asked "if Mme. Blavatsky-presumebly the 'Talking Image'- does not 
> object to finding herself repressented as a kind of mediumistic 
poll 
> parrot, why should other 'theosohists' object?"(H.P.Blavatsky, 
> Collected Writings, vol.11,p.46.)
> There is however a consistency with the above, and what Hartmann 
> wrote about his experiences in Adyar during the time of Blavatsky 
> lived there (Hartmann accompanied Blavatsky to Europe 
> afterwards): " " (1897)
> 
> The letters Daniel Caldwell quotes about Hartmann are ALL from a 
much 
> earlier date then the above two quotes. Obviously Hartmann had the 
> opportunity to make certain observations during and afther the 
time 
> that he was living in Adyar,(as already mentioned he travelled 
> Blavatsky to Europe afther she left Adyar) , that made him take on 
> the above position. Even when Reitemeyer/Caldwell might want to 
argue 
> Hartmann wrote the "Talking Image of Urur" as a satire (whereas 
many 
> would argue a satire is a good opprtunity to tell the truth ), 
> certainly the last quote above is not from a satire but from a 
> published "report" by Hartmann, and both the satire and the quote 
> from the factual report indeed match. and are real, wichever way 
> Reitemeyer/Caldwell will try to sweep it under the carpet . (But 
> Frank dissapears each time when I ask him about his fake protocols)
>  
  
> Brigitte