Re: Steve Stubbs & Vernon Harrison on Blavatsky & the Mahatma Letters
Nov 03, 2002 12:11 PM
by Steve Stubbs
--- In theos-talk@y..., "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...> wrote:
> Thank you for your comments on Blavatsky and the Mahatma Letters
> I find some of your statements questionable and dubious.
Which comment is it that you find dubious? If you are saying that
Hodgson dealt fairly with his handwriting "experts" (Gribble was no
expert) then I would have to say you are wrong. Hodgson's behavior
was disgraceful. Don't defend himl please.
I do not disupute that Harrison examined the letters, but statements
by K.H., Blavatsky, and Besant seem to me to have more force than his
> ". . . I have found no evidence that the Mahatma Letters were
> by Helena Blavatsky consciously and deliberately in a disguised
> of her own handwriting
That she wrote them is admitted. What is at issue is
the "consciously and deliberately" part. Was she a secretary taking
dictation, or did she serve in some other capacity? It was not
obvious at the time, but I think it would have been far better had
she spelled out exactly what was the nature of her relationship to
the purported authors of the letters for the purpose of letter
Q.W. Judge wrote letters entirely in the KH script just to show he
could do it and that it could be done. There is no question that he
disguised his handwriting.
> ". . . If any of the KH and M scripts came through the hand of
> Blavatsky while she was in a state of trance, sleep, or other
> states of consciouness known to psychologists and psychiatrists, KH
> and M might be considered sub-personalities of Helena Blavatsky.
That was Yeats' theory. There is good reason believe they were real
men, but there is a difficult problem determining whether and to what
extent these real men were able to express themselves through the
medium of the mahatma letters. Harrison's opinions seem to bear on
> what extent the sub-personalities are independent is a matter for
> debate; but in no case would conscious fraud or imposture be
I agree. There are some alleging conscious fraud, but I am not one
Nor does this supposition circumvent the difficulty that
> there are KH letters which even Hodgson had to admit Madame
> could not possibly have written as she was too far away at the time
> and communications were bad."
Since Theosophical sources admit there were more than one amanuensis
chela, this is not a difficulty.
> "I am satisfied that the Mahatma Letters were not dictated to
> who wrote them in their own handwriting. However, it is stated in
> letters themselves that many of them were transmitted in KH's
> handwriting by chelas using 'precipitation' or what seems to be a
> human FAX process.
The problem with that is that the letters also say precipitation was
forbidden by the chohan. Some of them must have been producd by some
other means if the mahatma letters themselves are to be believed.
The Shannon letter and the Gebhard letter are good candidates for
evidence that some letters were delivered by phenomenal means. It
appears most of them were merely palmed off on someone, so that there
were phenomenal and non-phenomenal deliveries, consistent with what
the letters themselves say.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application