BAG on "the credibility of HPB, Olcott and their inner circle"
Jan 27, 2003 01:11 PM
by D. H. Caldwell " <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In reply to my posting at:
"You are assuming the credibility of HPB, Olcott and their inner
circle of confidential associates. When I had any doubt about them,
their character, motives, means and goals, I gave them the benefit of
it. However, after studying them and the genesis and early years of
their Theosophical Society, all doubt was removed, and I concluded
that they were all involved in at best a delusion, with pervasive
elements of deception, and at worst, a complete and out-right fraud.
They deceived each other, their followers, and the public in general
as a regular course of action. Such deception, even when engaged in
for what they clearly believed in as a noble cause, is pathological."
BAG, thanks for your comments.
First of all, it would help your readers on this forum to assess the
reliability of your statements, if you could give a few concrete
examples illustrating what you call the delusion, pervasive elements
of deception and complete and out-right fraud of HPB, Olcott and
their inner circle.
Now to my second point.
Let's compare and contrast what you write above with what Steve
Stubbs has written. In two separate postings, Steve has given his
opinion as follows:
"The Shannon letter and the Gebhard letter are GOOD CANDIDATES for
evidence that some [Mahatma] letters were delivered by PHENOMENAL
". . . the only proof we can have of the masters' historical
existence is testimony from a qualified witness, and we have that
from Olcott. . . . Olcott's testimony is sufficient in my judgment to
establish their corporeal existence as legal persons. . . . I cannot
agree with anyone that they were fictions, fantasies, imagined
beings, trance personalities, or any such thing as that unless the
Olcott evidence can be satisfactorily disposed of. I raised that
question some time ago, and no one has ever addressed it, so for that
reason I remain stubbornly convinced that the mahatmas were real men
as they were claimed to be."
It is apparent to me that Steve believes at least some of the
witnesses were "qualified" witnesses not only to encounters with the
Mahatmas but to paranormal phenomena. I would agree with Steve.
BAG, please inform us as to why you believe Steve's assessment is
WRONG. What specific evidence, etc. makes you discount Olcott's
testimony or the testimony of Rudolf Gebhard?
To use Steve's phraseology, can you satisfactorily dispose of
Daniel H. Caldwell
Visit Blavatsky Archives at:
"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at
their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and
hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision."
H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application