Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00314)

Adelasie:

Unfortunately, the volume of mail that is being
generated on this list has gotten so voluminous it is
impossible for me to read all of it, so I did not
catch your challenge on the first go round.

The evidence that Blavatsky. Olcott, and the mahatmas
used botanical assistance in achieving altered states
of consciousness has been outlined in numerous
previous emails, and there are numerous other
references which can easily be found, especially in
ISIS UNVEILED. If you want to chase all of this down,
I would suggest consulting the archives. Some of
these substances were undoubtedly those sold by P.B.
Randolph under brand names such as "Dhoula Bel" and so
forth. Lord only knows what they had in them.

This sort of thing was perfectly legal back then and
probably will be legal again when the cost of trying
to impose our will on others by force becomes so
egregious that we collectively decide to shut down the
campaign against recreational chemicals. It is
extremely odd that this opinion seems to be shared by
rabid plutocrats like William F. Buckley with folks
all across the political spectrum into the far left
when they agree on nothing else. The main opposition
to ending this "war" comes of course from those who
are employed by it and who would have to seek
employment elsewhere were the laws changed. I don't
blame them for wanting to protect their livelihoods. 
However, it makes no sense for Theosophical
Fundamentalists to insist that their objects of
personal worship must have conformed to the standards
of 2002 C.E. in 1875. What they were doing in 1875
was legal then and in 2075 it will be legal again. 
The historical facts are there. Let's go with them.

Steve

--- adelasie <adelasie@surfari.net> wrote:
> Dear Brigitte,
> 
> I took your suggestion and went through the archives
> searching for 
> some primary source information to support Steve's
> statement that HPB 
> said she and the Masters used "botanical
> substances." I didn't find 
> any. There are quotes from people like Deveney,
> Godwin, and Rawson, 
> but nowhere do I find such a statement from HPB
> herself, as Steve 
> maintains exists. 
> 
> Steve has not responded to my request, but you have
> been very 
> responsive, so I may as well ask you, is this the
> only reference you 
> have to support this theory, the statements about
> HPB by others, the 
> reports of others about what she said and did? That
> is not quite the 
> same thing as being able to produce something she
> wrote on the 
> subject that supports your theory. 
> 
> You offered the paragraph from Isis Unveiled in
> support of your 
> theory, and it is the only primary material provided
> so far by you 
> that has a page number included so I could look it
> up for myself. 
> 
> You of course are welcome to entertain any theory
> you like, and if 
> you are satisfied to hold such a theory without any
> solid evidence to 
> back it up, that is your affair. But I have a
> different theory, which 
> may as well be stated as well.
> 
> We all know that anyone can say anything. Sometimes
> people have an 
> agenda so strong that they actually manufacture
> evidence to "prove" 
> their point. This has been the case all along with
> HPB, as is 
> documented very well, for instance, in Cranston's
> book about HPB, and 
> it is not surprising that she was treated in this
> way, since she 
> unselfishly devoted her life to helping others, us,
> in fact. People 
> who behave like that have the power to infuriate
> almost everyone. She 
> was not the first and I don't suppose she will be
> the last. 
> 
> HPB wrote about a great many things, including
> mystical practices of 
> ancient civilizations, but that does not mean that
> she used drugs. 
> Drug use is a pretty potent subject nowadays with a
> negative 
> connotation, when we use these substances for
> recreation. But in 
> ancient times, such things were used for religious
> purposes. Even 
> tobacco is viewed by Native Americans as a sacred
> plant. But 
> theosophy does not recommend the use of stimulants
> and narcotics 
> because they have a debilitating effect upon the
> centers of the body 
> which will be needed when our evolution proceeds
> further. This is not 
> to condemn others for using these substances. If you
> are to be free 
> to entertain and carry on with your very odd
> opinions and theories 
> about theosophy, I don't see why someone else should
> be condemned for 
> his preferences. But so far I haven't seen any
> primary evidence that 
> HPB said that she or the Masters used drugs, and I
> am assuming that 
> is what Steve was referring to by the term
> "botanical substances."
> 
> Adelasie
> 
> On 10 Feb 2002 at 1:06, bri_mue wrote:
> 
> > Adelasie,what you qoute below is only a small
> fraction from what I
> > send,including the responses of Steve.
> > 
> > I do not know why you selectivly and out of
> context quote only this
> > small portion , but if you are willing to go back
> and add together 
> > what I posted on this matter on theos-talk , I'l
> be glad to have a
> > discussion with you about it. The way you choose
> to present it now
> > however is a distortion, since it is only a
> fraction of the quotes and
> > the remarks from first Steve (who started it on
> Daniel Caldwells
> > invitation) added to by me, also on Daniel's
> invitation or schall we
> > call chalenge.
> > 
> > All these mails can be viewed and copied at: 
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/
> > 
> > by clicking the end Nov.and early Dec. posts.
> > Brigitte
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com