Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00245)

Hello Steve,
Saturday, January 05, 2002, you wrote:

> Here is the main quote in Isis which establishes a
> connection between Blavatsky and Randolph:

> "In the United States, a mystical fraternity now
> exists, which claims an intimate relationship with one
> of the oldest and most powerful of Eastern
> Brotherhoods. It is known as the Brotherhood of Luxor,
> and its faithful members have the custody of very
> important secrets of science. Its ramifications extend
> widely throughout the great Republic of the West.
> Though this brotherhood has been long and hard at
> work, the secret of its existence has been jealously
> guarded. Mackenzie describes it as having "a
> Rosicrucian basis, and numbering many members" ("Royal
> Masonic Cyclopaedia," p. 461). But, in this, the
> author is mistaken; it has no Rosicrucian basis. The
> name Luxor is primarily derived from the ancient
> Beloochistan city of Looksur, which lies between Bela
> and Kedgee, and also gave its name to the Egyptian
> city." (Isis 2.308)

Taken by itself, this passage in no way admits of anything you would claim
it does. You set it up as self-evident. But their is no logical basis, even
a clever illogical basis, for your claim. Below you sin even more egregiously
against logic.

> She admitted elsewhere that the real name of this
> fraternity was not "The Brotherhood of Luxor" but did
> not give the real name. As J.P. Deveney points out,
> it was P.B.Randolph's "Rosicrucian Brotherhood." That
> this is true can be seen from the following
> statements:

As above. However the unsupported assertion that "this is true" states the
conclusion in advance. A cheap rhetorical trick.

> (1) Situated "in the United States." Randolph's
> "Rosicrucian Brotherhood," was centered in Boston,
> Massachusetts.

Beyond Belief! The mere act of co-locating something connects it to ... well
whatever you wish if you would pursue this false line of logic.

> (2) "Now exists" (in 1877).

Not only the same geographical location, the same century! What conspiracies
we could uncover using the same method!

> (3) "Claims an intimate relationship with one of the
> oldest and most powerful of Eastern Brotherhoods." 
> Randolph claimed to have studied in India; Brigitte
> says the claim was bogus, but if that is true, the
> fault is with Randolph and not Blavatsky.

Stating something and inferring - without, let it be emphasised, NO causal
connection - that that which HPB skirted around is identical to your
"revelation" (no deduction here) that it was Randolph's outfit she referred
to because that was the only "Eastern Brotherhood" you could pin down to
that time. Have you ever considered that she referred to an altogether
more secretive group that you missed in your research? I doubt it.
Nonetheless we at least know that you believe Randolph's crew to be "most
powerful" since that is how you make the identifying link. There is no
evidence to show it was the "oldest".

> (4) "Its ramifications extend widely throughout the
> great Republic of the West," albeit not as widely as
> its organizers might have liked. If memory serves me
> well, Randolph did try to establish a group in San
> Francisco, which is on the other side of the continent
> from Boston.

Memory is no excuse for illogic. If your point is so vague and speculative,
why advance it at all?

> (4) "This brotherhood has been long and hard at work,"
> as of 1877. As Brigitte pointed out, Randolph's books
> were coming out as early as 1862 or even earlier.

A more tenuous linkage would be hard to make.

> (5) "The secret of its existence has been jealously
> guarded," even though Randolph and co. might have
> preferred it be better known. He was not a good
> promoter.

Here you already believe you have proved your point. To answer the question
how, if it was secret, can it so easily be discerned, you offer this weak
explanation. No sound and sober person should swallow such chaff.

> (6) "It has no Rosicrucian basis." Despite using the
> name, Randolph admitted in his RAVALETTE that
> "everything I have given out as Rosicrucian originated
> in my own soul." (this quote from memory.)

Again a feeble memory advanced as vital proof. However the groups who have
claimed Rosicrucian roots are legion, why not choose any one of them?

> (7) The documents Blavatsky claimed to have gotten
> from them constantly urged the recipient to TRY, which
> was Randolph's motto.

Puhleeze! Suppose you could link Blavatsky with every self-improvement
course ever offered, never mind any philosophy or religion of
perfectibilism? There is no link. Two groups could urge their people to
"TRY" but one might "TRY" for something completely different from the other.

> The credit for this insight must go to Deveney. I
> should have figured that one out myself, but confess
> to having had an "Aha!" experience when I read
> Deveney's book. It is notable that when Chintamon et
> al started "The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor" they
> based it on Randolph's stuff. So others probably
> figured it out before Deveney.

In case you might be wrong, its always a good plan to credit someone else
with the insights youve just laid out as incontrovertribly suggestive of
proof of your point. In this case it appears to be just false modesty.

> In Isis she refers to the mystical experience as "that
> image of blinding light that he sees reflected in the
> concave mirror of his own soul" Isis 1.xviii

> One does not tend to buy concave mirrors in the
> furniture store. Randolph had these specially made
> for mirror gazing purposes.

Making the figurative literal plumbs the depths of an already impoverished
"logic".

> Searching elsewhere int he same book we find
> references to:

> "the eternal mirror of the astral ether" (2.60)

> "the mirror of astral light. Isis 2.115

> "the mirror of Astral light. (Isis, Vol. I, p. 352.)

> That is suggestive in terms of the statement I quoted
> earlier that she tried to "collect astral light" by
> will power before gazing at metal mirrors. I shall
> leave it to others to decide exactly how this should
> be interpreted, but I do not believe it was intended
> as mere poetic fancy. I think these statements hint
> at the technique she used to develop "lucidity."

The key phrase here is "I believe" It is hard to accept a statement of
belief as a premise in support of your conclusions. Each case above is almost
certainly taken out of context. The mirror of the astral light is surely
figurative, in the same, if a greater, sense as the term "the eye is the
window to the soul". Surely you don't believe the soul can be directly
observed through the eye?

> There is a reference to "Apollonius, who asserted that
> he could see 'the present and the future in a clear
> mirror.'" 1.486

> There are also some tall tales about a tiger seeing
> something in a blackened mirror and also of such
> mirrors being used in Mexico when the Spanish came to
> plunder the place. In a footnote to the latter story
> we read:

> "These 'magic mirrors,' generally black, are another
> proof of the universality of an identical belief. In
> India these mirrors are prepared in the province of
> Agra and are also fabricated in Thibet and China. And

Can we say with confidence and authority that Randolph's and these mirrors
were produced by identical method? Of course we do not know how the mirrors
referred to immediately above were made. And supposition is no substitute for
knowledge. Can we say that this footnote is intended not to corroborate the
use of scrying mirrors, but primarily to show that these practices exist and
have existed in our world in all cultures and places in the world?

> The story Brigitte cites in which Blavatsky indicated
> her disapproval of Randolph evidently relates to a
> period after the time in which Isis was written. This
> suggests, as a matter of historical interest, that the
> break between her and the Randolph crowd occurred
> between 1877 and the date of the story.

Suggests? How about I "suggest" the above speculation suggests nothing
except the fanciful musing of a suggester.

> Unfortunately
> we cannot pinpoint the date very closely, only within
> a time period of several years. Randolph committed
> suicide in 1875, don't remember the date off hand, and
> she came to New York in 1874, so her association with
> him personally was probably brief, unless she met him
> in Europe when he was doing his thing with Napoleon
> III. [here para split by alan]

Such vagueness cannot be taken seriously.

> She would therefore have fallen out with Dowd or
> some other of Randolph's successors and not with
> Randolph personally. Unfortunately, Clymer is not a
> reliable source for information. In Isis she cites
> Randolph's book PRE-ADAMITE MAN briefly with approval.
> [spilt here too]

Such vagueness cannot be taken seriously.

>snipped...


> As for Blavatsky never changing her tune on
> reincarnation

Not sure Im with you on this one. Changed Tune, or explained in a different
way, or qualified an existing explantion? If the last two don't fit then
maybe it was a Changed Tune. But then a changed tune, in the way you use it,
suggests a reversal. And I'm not sure that can be shown.


> Anyway, I have always heard it is a lady's prerogative
> to change her mind. In Isis she makes numerous
> references to God, and later she said she did not
> believe in God. Those are just two changes that took
> place.

This is completely taken out of context (And HPB was no lady). Of course she
makes numerous references to God. At the outset of IU she explains what she
has to say may be difficult for readers to grasp and as far as is possible
she will couch it in terms familiar to most readers. "God", is the term most
religions use for their highest force (irrespective of how they characterise
it); Blavatsky said she did not believe in a personal(anthropomorphic, in
most characterisations) God. Within the limits of the language she elevated
the concept "God" to mean 'That' which is beyond the God of our religions.
Take a break.

> Yes, Jerry, I, too, doubt Dallas owns a crystal. I
> think you are right about that one. I also agree that
> mere reading without direct experience is of
> relatively limited value.

Mere experience without any heart is also of limited value. UnConcious
distortion of facts is unfortunate, concious distortion even more so.

If you are to press your point of view, at least employ a little logic, for
what you have attempted so far appears to be psuedo-scientific propaganda.
Utterly without logical consistency. If you are at all serious, show us some
respect.

-- 
Best regards,
Alan
mailto:alwilli@iafrica.com