Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00197)

Wednesday, December 12, 2001


Dear Steve:


Those are not proof, but hearsay and opinion. At best they are
SECONDARY sources -- "hearsay." Also in Sylvia Cranston's H P B
they are refuted in full.

I meant PRIMARY sources,. and not the secondary ones you provide
me with.

I am well aware of these. I want eye-witness testimony if
available.

P B Randolph was never one of H P B's "teachers." where did you
get that opinion?

H.P.Blavatsky wrote in ISIS UNVEILED and in her articles about
"botanical stimulants" but does not recommend their use. Nor
does she recommend alcohol -- also a drug. So why say she either
used or recommended stimulants or drugs, when she DID NOT ?

Hearsay is NOT proof. It is prejudice. Also H P B is not able
to refute this, she being "dead"

Dallas

=========================



-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Stubbs [mailto:stevestubbs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:09 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Theos-World Fumes, fumes, fumes! The botanical
lapidation of HS Olcott

Nobody has accused Blavatsky of using alcohol or being
"a deranged inebriate"

There is some evidence that during the New York period
there was some experimenting with botanical
substances.

Pls. refer to the quotes from Joscelyn Godwin and
Patrick Devenbey and Emma Hardinge-Britten posted by
Brigitte Muhlegger for definitive proof.

Please refer to the references posted by me to the
writings of Olcott, Rawson, and Blavatsky for more
proof.

Please refer to the anecdote posted by Daniel Caldwell
for still more proof.

One of her teachers was PB Randolph, and he was into
all sorts of botanical stimulants as has been well
documented.

Blavatsk insisted there was something "secret" about
her movement, and it is likely this was the secret.

Whether this experimenting went on after 1879 is
problematic.

--- dalval14@earthlink.net wrote:
> Tuesday, December 11, 2001
>
> Re: Me. Blavatsky -- teacher of THEOSOPHY.
>
> Dear Friend:
>
>
> As you see I am for the truth, and not for opinion
> in any way.
> Not am I a friend of gossip.
>
> That is why I do not meddle in the past opinions
> concerning
> people, but rather, go to what they have written, so
> as t see
> what they had to say. I would trust that rather
> than any
> intermediary or interpreter.
>
CUT