Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00462)

SUBJECT: Brian's Argument concerning HPB's comments on "Aryans" in 
ISIS UNVEILED

Bhakti Ananda Goswami wrote on Brian's website:

"H.P. Blavatsky ALWAYS assumed Arya meant white as in 'white' race. 
What difference does it make if she used the term 'white or the 
term 'Aryan,' when to her they meant the same thing? . . . The whole 
root races idea is based on the erroneous premise that Arya in the 
Sanskrit literatures means 'white race.'" CAPS ADDED

Quoted from:
http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/lettersed.html

Notice Goswami wrote that Blavatsky ALWAYS assumed Arya meant white 
as in "white" race.

To show readers that Goswami's statement was misleading (to say the 
least), I quoted statements in ISIS UNVEILED which clearly showed 
that in her 1877 work Blavatsky did NOT assume Arya(n) meant "white." 

Please see the relevant quotes from ISIS in my posting titled: 

"HP Blavatsky in ISIS UNVEILED on the word 'Aryan' and the 'Aryans'"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8742

To my posting, Brian countered:

"It is . . . known that the majority in the text of Isis didn't come 
from Blavatsky's pen at all but was copied verbatim from printed 
books , of the 100 ore so Blavatsky had in her appartment that time."

Quoted from:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8755

If I correctly understand Brian's comment, he is saying that the 
extracts from HPB's ISIS UNVEILED about "Aryan" could be possibly 
copied verbatim from works by other authors and therefore do NOT 
represent HPB's own views.

But if this is Brian's reasoning, then why not apply that SAME 
argument to what HPB wrote about "Aryan" in THE SECRET DOCTRINE?

Notice what William Emmette Coleman wrote in one of his critiques of 
HPB:

"Plagiarism is a marked characteristic of the writings alike of Mme. 
Blavatsky and of the mahatmas. In Isis Unveiled I have traced some 
2,000 passages copied from other books without credit. Her Secret 
Doctrine is permeated with SIMILAR plagiarisms." CAPS ADDED.

Quoted from:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/cole1893.htm

And in another article, Coleman wrote:

"In Isis Unveiled, published in 1877, I discovered some 2000 passages 
copied from other books without proper credit. . . . "

But pay close attention to what Coleman wrote later in the same 
article:

"The Secret Doctrine, published in 1888, is of a piece with Isis. It 
is permeated with plagiarisms, and is in all its parts a rehash of 
other books. . . . "

Quoted from:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/colemansources1895.htm

So if Brian's argument is valid for the ISIS UNVEILED statements, 
then could we not ALSO assume that what is "written" in THE SECRET 
DOCTRINE about Aryan "didn't come from Blavatsky's pen at all but was 
copied verbatim from printed books" of other authors?

I would like to see serious input from Brian and others on the above 
point.

But Brian's statement given above appears to contain a 
basic misunderstanding about what Coleman actually claimed when he 
spoke of HPB's "plagiarisms." I will write about that in a future 
email if I see that Brian is trying to have a "serious" 
and "scholarly" discussion of the issues.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc