Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00435)

<<<Brigitte: The behavior of shamans in tribal society some cases can be close to the description as in this case you describe of Blavatsky, 
yet in these societys (as was probably with the shamanic tribes in the area where Blavatsky for some time grew up) mediumistic type behavior is appreciated, and like Franz Hartmann called Blavatsky in regards to the "Mahatmas" the "talking image." >>>

Right. Shamantic societies incourage this sort of thing, while our modern society considers it to be aborational. I have come across this idea in many good psychology books. For example, borderline personality disorder (BPD) is rampant in the US today, and mostly with women.It is rather easily diagnosed, with very definite behavior and thought patterns. It is also rather difficult to cure, and some experts have confined to me that it is actually incurable, although it tends to dissipate naturally after mid-age. However, it is not found anywhere in primitive or shamantic societies. Some psychologists see this as an example of how our modern society itself breeds mental illnesses (Hillman, for one).


<<<Blavatsky, was born in Russia in 1831. Her mother died while Blavatsky was young. She spent part of her childhood with her maternal grandmother and part in army camps where her father was stationed. There she was exposed to the crude language and brash 
attitudes that would become part of her character. Blavatsky was headstrong and independent, contrasting willful behavior and tantrums 
with a brilliant mind that easily learned music and foreign languages. She experienced trancelike visions, communed with nature spirits, often walked in her sleep, and talked with animals.>>>

Yeah, she was quite a tomboy. I like that.

<<<Later in life, Blavatsky stated that at eight or nine years of age, she began channeling the spirit of "Aunt T" which resulted in nearly ten volumes of dictated information gathered over the next six years. In her fourteenth year, Blavatsky discovered that Aunt T was still living, therefore could not possibly have been a spirit or have channeled anything to her. Blavatsky explained this six year 
adventure by saying it was a product of her own child mind (Mary K.Neff "Personal Memoirs of H.P.Blavatsky."1967). This prelude to her future channeling activities shows that she was capable of self delusion on a grand scale.>>>

The delusion is not necessarily the telepathic messages themselves, but their source. We often get our sources wrong. As I have already said, it is downright impossible to know exactly where a telepathic message is coming from (unless, I suppose, a living person acknowledges having sent it). Many great people have received very valid messages or ideas, and then have credited these to bogus sources. The whole idea of "spirit guides" for example, is suspect, at least to me. In other words, its possible but improbable.


<<<<Helena's sister, Vera Jelihovsky, told how Helena would entertain them with tales of her invisible friends:
I well remember when stretched at full length on the ground, her chin reclining on her two palms, and her two elbows buried deep in the soft sand, she used to dream aloud and tell us of her visions, 
evidently clear, vivid, and as palpable as life to her ... our imagination galloped off with her fancy to a full oblivion to the present reality." Vera told how Helena told "the most incredible" 
stories with the "cool assurance and conviction of an eye witness. (Sinnett, "Incidents in ghe life of Madame Blavatsky") >>>

Imagination is the gift of all true occultists and great religious founders (also writers, inventors, and etc.). I would be surprised if Blavatsky had grown up otherwise. As Jung noted, we all tend to discredit the imagination as a "nothing but" but it is much more than that. Without a vivid imagination, occultism and esotericism are impossible.


<<<Blavatsky told at least four distinct versions of her acquaintance with "Morya", the member she supposed to have met in her youth in London. In "Caves and Jungles of Hindustan" he is "Gulab-Singh," the Hindu ruler of a small Central Indian state. According to this version, her first contact with him after their London meeting was through a letter he sent her in New York over twenty years later. The most frequently repeated story was that M. was a Buddhist living in Tibet where she studied with him for a long period in the late 1860s. But in yet another variation, she wrote to Prince Dondukov-Korsakov that her first contact with him after their London meeting was a letter he sent her in Odessa many years later, directing her to go to India. In this version, she never once saw the Master although he directedher itinerary by mail for more than two years. They were reunited at last inYokahama, Japan, where he had summoned her from New York. Finally, HPB wroteto her Aunt Nadyezhda that her Master was a Nepalese Buddhist living in Ceylon, with whom she had renewed acquaintance via a letter he wrote her in New York. With four mutually contradictory versions of the same character,all that can be concluded is that most if not all of HPB's stories about him were false. It would be more accurate to say that the conflicting Morya stories cannot be true "and" about the same person, although they may contain true bits and pieces about several. Paul wrote this also many years ago but he couldn't figure it out that time. >>>

Agreed, and this is probably the thing that swayed me to thinking that Paul was on to something. Her "blinds" were deliberate attempts at subtrafuge or cover up. And it seems valid for us to ask why. But real living Masters (those identities whom she was trying to conceal) remain a distinct possibility, as Paul also concludes.

Jerry S.

--