Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00338)

Saturday, December 15, 2001


Dear Daniel:

Re: Criticism on the character of H P B after
her "death."


I know you are a very fair and accurate historian and are far
more accurate and careful than I am.

My interest is the study and verification of Theosophical
doctrines, tenets, metaphysics, etc... And I only deal in
history (which to me is just the physical shell, or, the vehicle
for Theosophic presentation) when it appears that some injustice
is being allowed to be made. If those who deal in history
properly reference their opinions and presentations, so that all
can see an evaluate themselves, I have no objection. But when I
see obscurity then I try to bring that out into the open. I am
also the first to admit I am wrong, if and when I am so.

Your points are noted. To me the reports are suspect, (they
relate to the period 16 or 17 years past -- in 1873-5-- the delay
in noting them puzzled me) and, one of the reasons is the failure
to immediately publish the dates (1892 -- a year after H P B's
death) and the Sources of their publication; along with the
derogatory statements made (unsupported) recently in the Group
postings. Now that has been remedied. I wanted to make sure of
that.

As to raising fresh criticism and especially to the detriment of
a person who has died is not exactly courageous, is it ? I do
not believe in the right of historians to raise these things
unless 1.) they can place the source on some fact or writing
which can be verified and dated, and 2.) they can explain
plausibly why such a thing was delayed till after the death of
the person being criticized. If that is done it lifts the burden
of responsibility, and places i where it belongs, on the Source.

HITLER and -- H P B ( An Adept in Incarnation)
-- NO COMPARISON

In answer to another post you sent.

No. I do not classify an Adept like H P B, in the same category
as the personality known to the world as "Hitler." I find no
vindication for what Hitler is alleged to have said and done.
There is plenty of evidence for that from multiple sources.


Now, let me say what I consider to be the worth of H P B.

H P B was an Adept of the Great Ancient Lodge, and, She lived and
taught that which made ethical and moral choosing a lawful
reality -- if one wishes to study and verify that. The only
proof I think that makes Theosophy worthwhile is the concept of
UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD and the supporting metaphysics, logic and
ethics that underlie its tenets and doctrines. Everyone is
invited to study and test them.

They (Hitler and H P B) appear to be poles apart from their
words, actions and motives. Yet they are both human beings and
have fundamentally the same basic composition. It is important
to understand the difference in character. In any case, who
wants to revive the memory of a "Hitler" when an H P B is at hand
? Whose effect on HISTORY will have likely the longest effect?
Brotherhood or brutality?

Most people know the details of the impression Hitler left on our
times. In the case of a Hitler you find that the proposal of
imposing a rigid and immediate "ideal reality" on millions of
people, abruptly, and by force, was immediately opposed by their
innate sense of freedom, and the spirit of the independent right
to self-determination that every one has. Atrocities and war
developed as a result of resistance, and millions were
precipitated into the Maelstrom of horror, torture, war,
resistance and death.

In my esteem, one cannot compare that, with the benevolence and
gentle compassion which is the moral effect of universal Law,
that an understanding of THEOSOPHY gives. Non-resistance, and,
above all NON-COOPERATION with EVIL, is the only way a true
lover of mankind and a believer in immortality can deal with
immediate coercion. Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi are three who jump to
mind as illustrating this.

Few, today, know the value and impact of H P B -- of her
writings: ISIS UNVEILED, The SECRET DOCTRINE her articles, and
the effort made through the establishing of the THEOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY in 1875 to begin the effort, to establish a nucleus,
where BROTHERHOOD would be taught, and demonstrated.

The attempt was (and still is) to redirect the mind and spiritual
yearnings of our humanity to a far more broad-minded condition.
It is called an attempt to change the "Manas and the Buddhi" of
our races presently on earth.

To do this it was necessary to cause people to consider the view
that we are all immortals as Spiritual Souls, and that
reincarnation of the individual Spiritual Soul implies that we
live many successive lives under a law that is just and fair for
all: Karma. Further that being immortals the tendency of the
whole of manifestation is towards individualized perfection.

We are brothers, in the source of our consciousness and
intelligence (the ONE SPIRIT). We are brothers, in the fact that
we all use the same materials (like air, water, food, materials,
etc...which are continually recycled and reused by many, one
after the other). We are brothers, in the fact that we all
strive to live and become better. We are all brothers, in that
we have the same freedom of opportunity and the freedom to choose
our own path to its achievement. But, of course not everyone is
willing to agree to these concepts.


JUDGE PERSONS BY THE MORAL CONTENT
OF THEIR WRITINGS.

I consider, therefore that Theosophy endeavors to draw our
attention to the fact that we ought to try to judge persons by
what they write and say and do. What is the Cause and what is
the potential Effect, when considered from the ethical and moral
point of view?

When anyone writes (or attempts to write) an ISIS UNVEILED, a
SECRET DOCTRINE, or Articles, and Letters like an "H P B" they
will have my close attention. Others attract attention through
notoriety. And that, they are forced by their own natures to
defend. But what is the value of "notoriety?"

An Adept, like H P B, if absent (or prevented by Karma from
manifesting), needs defense from those who, like me, perhaps, who
considers themselves to be her friends, and, indebted to her. We
have benefited from her work. I ask for details when I am
presented with opposing views. I consider the merits of what is
offered. If necessary, I protest. And knowing you, I am sure
you do the same.


WOLFE / RAWSON REPORTS ON SMOKING HASHISH
AND DRINKING "SPIRITS."
[Events said to occur in 1873-75--Reported in 1892 -- Gap of 17
to 18 years]

When one reads "historical" contributions with care, it is usual
to assume that the writer offers a perfectly level field to the
reader. I believe we have the same criteria. I am sure that
yours are perhaps stricter than mine in the practice of your
specialty. I would judge that the Wolfe and Rawson reports /
opinions (when recently republished, and brought to our attention
as being possibly significant), were not at first, adequately
referenced. When eventually this was made clear, I made the
point that I did . They were published in 1892 -- about a year
after H P B had died. She was given no chance in the 18, or so
years, that they lay "dormant," to say anything about the
allegations. Not very fair, I would say. None of the great
personages or savants around H P B who were her friends and who
discussed her works have come out to mention this (such as
Carson, Westcott, Wilder, etc...) -- one wonders why ?

These publications (because of their timing) appear to be a kind
of belated slap at her character, since they refer to this period
of time -- about 18 to 19 years prior to their being published
(1892) -- when she was in the New York area, in the 1873-79
period, and when she was busy with the publishing of ISIS
UNVEILED (1877) and founding the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (1875).
One really wonders why any prominence, at this time, is made of
this? Do you think, perhaps that slurs cast at H P B and her
character will cause present day inquirers to shy away from
THEOSOPHY?


Mme. COULOMB, MADRAS MISSIONARIES ATTACKS ON H P B and T
S,
HODGSON and S. P. R. REPORT (1883-4)
-- Carrithers and Vernon
Harrison.

Madam Coulomb's charges and reports, along with those of the
Missionaries in Madras and the Hodgson Report published by the
Society for Psychical Research in Cambridge, (1883-4) have been
reviewed a number of times. They have been refuted, and proved
to be incorrect -- the motivation was to discredit H P B as a
"medium" and to impugn the authenticity of "letters" from the
Masters of Wisdom." In recent years thanks to the efforts and
work of Carrithers and Vernon Harrison, the S P R retracted and
repudiated their endorsement of the "Hodgson's Report" (1883-4).

It took about a 100 years of persistent work to secure this
retraction.

With the work Mr. Carrithers did, and the Vernon Harrison report
did, a mention ought to be made of that which was done on the
spot by one of the Founders: Mr. W. Q. Judge, together with Dr.
F. Hartmann, Damodar K Mavlankar, and others in Madras (1883-5)
who halted Mr. Coulomb's rough constructions of fake wooden
apparatus in Mme. Blavatsky's rooms in her absence while she was
in Europe. I believe these have to be given equal publicity, or
the fairness in reporting is faulty and appears prejudiced
because it is one-sided. To me this "S P R Report" is now a
closed book, and ought to be treated as such by fair historians
who are presumed to know the whole story, and able to report that
fiasco clearly and in full. I occasionally find that reporters,
and careless students who rely on earlier "Histories" of the
THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (what is their interest in this ?) revive
the accusations but fail to include the more recent reversal by
the S P R and the closure of the matter. Very curious.

But enough for the moment. Perhaps I have answered, or at least
placed my view-point before you -- of course on my terms, but not
necessarily on yours. Do see if they have merit.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel H Caldwell
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 6:37 PM
To:
Subject: questions on what Dallas has written Re: H P B
SLANDERED AGAIN


Dallas wrote:

> I note from the dates of the material quoted [ Hannah Wolfe,
and
> Albert Rawson ] that they appear in journals AFTER the death of
> Mme. Blavatsky (she died May 8th 1891).
>
> These reports were published in 2 separate magazines -- see
> below -- Jen. and in Feb. 1892). She had no opportunity to see
> or to answer them.


Dallas, I fail to see your point. Yes, Blavatsky was dead in
1892
and could not answer the charges.

But does that mean that the claims by Wolfe and Rawson are
therefore
automatically to be discounted; that they are automatically
FALSE?

Madame Coulomb's charges against HPB were made DURING HPB's
lifetime.
Does that mean that they are therefore more credible?

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

DTB I think you misinterpret my reasoning. Please see above.

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

Dallas, you also write:

> Coleman's reports have been found and shown to be defective
long
> back, while H P B was still alive.

Exactly what are you referring to here? What is the primary
source
documentation here?

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

DTB
As catalogued in Gomes THEOSOPHY IN THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY

SEE items 767 (p. 231); 791 ( p. 238); 1192 ( pp. 345-6) ;
1207 (p. 350);

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

Again Dallas, you write:

> D. D. Home. never met Mme. Blavatsky while she was alive.
> Theosophy Magazine, July 1931, p. 416, Vol. 19. ] Both had
> great enmity for H P B.

But Theosophy magazine like the Godwin and Deveney books are
secondary sources. What primary sources does the Theosophy
magazine
writer cite to show that Home never met HPB?

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

DTB That was my only reference. I presume the editors of the
magazine knew this and allowed publication because of that.
Perhaps you have one ? Is there one which gives date and place
where they met ? Perhaps D. D. Home left a memoire on this ?

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