Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00492)

Again I repeat that

"Brigitte's latest 'essay' on the Masters and Spirtualism contains 
(1) numerous questionable assumptions (piled one upon the other), 
(2) statements with no supporting documentation, 
(3) misleading conclusions, 
(4) errors of facts, etc."

It would take dozens of pages to detail especially items (1), (2) and 
(3). 

Concerning item (4) errors of facts, I see a number of those, for 
example, Brigitte writes:

> Other occasions occurred in 1876 when Blavatsky orchestrated the 
> appearance of an "elemental" in her New York apartment by the 
simple 
> means of promising a maid five dollars if she would dress for the 
> part. It seems she never paid the debt. 
> (<http://blavatskyarchives.com/westbrook.htm>)

But was this "appearance" really in Blavatsky's "New York apartment"?
Read the Westbrook article at 
http://blavatskyarchives.com/westbrook.htm and answer the question 
for yourself.

The error may be deemed trivial but it is an indication of not 
clearly understanding the source material. Other examples could be 
given. 

As far as the above incident is concerned, see Michael Gome's 
comments in the Canadian Theosophist, May-June 1990.

Moving on to other items, Brigitte writes:

> And Sotheran a verry experienced esotericist, who had worked verry 
> closely with Blavatsky and was also co-founder of the TS, made it 
> clear that the "confident interpretations of the Society are 
> fallacious" and that hPB was totally without occult power. "Afther 
> intimate knowledge of her for a considerable period. I can affirm 
> that in my humble opinion she possesses NONE WHATEVER, 
> notwithstanding she may have psychlologized herself and her 
champions 
> into believing so"(Sotheran, "To the Editor of the Banner of Light" 
> 28/26, Januari 15,1876)

But was Sotheran really in a position to know anything about HPB's 
occult powers? How long had he known Blavatsky and how much had he 
really been around her?

COMPARE Sotheran's position and statements with Sinnett's detailed 
account of HPB's psychic powers in his OCCULT WORLD (1881).

Why believe anything Sotheran writes in vague general terms about 
HPB's occult powers when one can read very detailed accounts of her 
powers by scores of other persons. For example, see a compilation of 
these in my ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY [ 
http://blavatskyarchives.com/esotericworld.htm ]

Furthermore Brigitte fails to mention that Sotheran a year or two 
later wrote very positive things about Blavatsky.

Moving on.

When Brigitte writes:

> Blavatsky knew the Davenports, the Davenports who later tought 
> Houdini how to do his excape tricks.The Davenport's by the way used 
> exactly the same kind of cabinet as Blavatsky later used in 
Adyar. . .

This may all be gospel truth but Brigitte does NOT give her sources 
for these tidbits of information. How does she know that Blavatsky 
used "the same kind of cabinet" as the Davenport's. All of this is 
general and vague and with no references to the original sources.

If I had the time, I could write a whole essay detailing dozens of 
other things in Brigitte's essay. Maybe in 2002, I will write a 
detailed critique of some of Brigitte's material. In the meantime, I 
hope all readers of Brigitte's never ending essays will carefuly 
consider what she has written and will ask relevant questions 
concerning her statements. Better yet, don't trust the statements 
Brigitte writes (or far that mattter what I write) but go to the 
source material yourself and grapple with the material and ask the 
relevant questions.

I have no time to play Brigitte's "game" whatever that might be. She 
accuses me of never wanting a real dialogue with her but see her own 
method of not responding to questions and legitimate inquiries as 
illustrated in numerous posts on this forum.

See, for example, how Brigitte never directly answered any of Brendan 
French's and Gregory Tillett's serious statements. 

Daniel
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc