Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00455)

Hallo Dallas and all,

My views are:

1.
When I listen to Tony's quotes - then I see how your email fails in
adressing the Truth.

And I agree, that the HQ in one sense could be said to move where its
president - Olcott - moved.

But I will have to disagree - and will continue to do so - until after the
year 1891 - because Blavatsky was the 'Agent' of the Masters - and the
'outer head' of TS, - and therefore in reality she was the Exoteric HQ to
the public. And that is why I must disagree. The more Esoteric HQ - was and
is another story.

2.
When talking about the HQ and buildings - the HQ moved to India in 1879.
And the AUM was added to the Seal and the Motto: There is no religion higher
than Truth.
This marked the change.

"In 1879, the Headquarters of the Society was transferred to India. Since
1882 the International Headquarters has been located in Adyar, Chennai
(formerly Madras) in the South of India."
http://www.austheos.org.au/about_ts.htm

Where the HQ was after 1891 and HPB's physical death is difficult to
picture, but the HQ buildings remained somewhere in India. The 'outer head'
was no more. Who took her place ?

But the TS continued its existence - and we owe a thank to all honest
supporters for that.

And let us remember the following:
The real 'outer head' of the Masters is not following a dead-letter teaching
pattern on the theosophical teacings. This is a surprise to some honest
theosophical seekers - but never the less the plain and utter truth.
Blavatsky didn't do it (think about the high priests from Alexandria), and I
won't expect a new one to do it either.
And nor aught you to do. (Well this is at least my view.)
What are you thinking about ?

The ernest student may contrast the following link with the activities done
by Besant and Leadbeater on promoting Krishnamurti. The Same on Alice A.
Bailey:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ests1p2.htm

That is why I have the following text on my website:
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/SUFI2.HTM
(The mistaking of emotional for spiritual states;)

But the clever readers of Adyar or even Pasadena may find themselves in a
predicament, when they try to explain
in what sense they today follow these views of HPB and not the dangers,
which she mentions in her esoteric instructions at the following link.
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ests1p2.htm

I know, that some of you might disagree, and allright so be it.

3.
The Amun high priests in Alexandria was from the lineage which has existed
since the time of Atlantis.
And the AMUN came from the egypt word AMN, which was mentioned at least as
early as in the days of Imhotep - one of the builder of the Pyramids. AMN is
a word from India named - guess what - AUM.

Blavatsky on AUM or OM. Let us remember, that sound follows numbers.
So a - new - sound was in fact introduced in 1879 - when the AUM and its
Motto was added to the Seal.
(It is not the quantity of members within one single organization alone
which forms a clean spiritual development. Quality has to be remembered -
when group work is done.)
The following is said to be from HPB:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ests1p4.htm - and for instance some of the
next pages.
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ests1p15.htm
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ests1p19.htm
(Vedanta á la Subba T. Row and Shankara
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp )



4.
What is the earliest drawing we have - of the TS Seal - and about the TS
Seal ?
Anyone ?


5.
Is the following links - big - photo taken from the - original - front page
of The Secret Doctrine ?
http://www.theosophical.org/society/
How does this original front page of The Secret Doctrine - actually - look
like ? Anyone ?
The Seal has here on the photo - AUM on the top as well as the Motto added
to it.


I will also mention, that it was Interesting Symbols - that were used within
the Esoteric Section:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ests1prep2.htm (The Cover Page)
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/es1memo2.htm (The Swastika and the Star of
David)

***

6.
And something of almost useless importance:
The split was not created by Olcott alone. It was created by two or at least
three persons and not by one !
And It was done DELIBERATELY !
Not true ?
Because else Judge could have done much more to prevent it - couldn't he ?
(Let us not forget, that Judge knew about the following and the Elliott
Coues - affair. I see no reason why he shouldn't have:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpbes1extract.htm
These links could be worth adding:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj01.htm
and http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/45-95-6/th-kvmj.htm
And because of that - ie. the contents in the above links - it is strange
(or not strange ?) that we do not see more effort coming from Judge on
clarification of the facts.)




Did this help ?


from
M. Sufilight...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "AA-BN--Study" <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 9:10 PM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Manas and Blavatsky on the Christian Mass media...


> January 30, 2004
>
> Dear Friend:
>
> Re: Early history and HQ of the T S
>
>
> As I see it there is a wide difference between a documentary record and
> present opinions.
>
> In dealing with the past one is better served by going to the actual
> records. Our opinions have to bow before facts. In such a case there
> would be one source and no "twisting" of words.
>
> I lived in India, and in and around Bombay (1927 to 1969) for about 40
> years and have seen both 108 Girgaum Back Rd., and "Crow's Nest" which
> is actually quite some distance from "Breach Candy," (it was on Nepean
> Rd., (now renamed) on the shore of the Arabian Sea), as it (Crow's
> Nest) is on Malabar Hill at the top of that hill.
>
> The Bombay Branch of the T S is now located at French Bridge, near
> Dhobi Talao.
>
> I see no contradiction in this. The H Q in India for India is (or rather
> was) first at two addresses (you give them) in Bombay, and then at
> Adyar, and as far as I know, it was later transferred (for India) to
> Benares The International H Q of the T S remains at Adyar.
>
> As I said, it was Col. Olcott, PTS who established the H Q "wherever he
> was encamped."
>
> The split between the American Section (sanctioned by Olcott) and the
> rest of the T S was created solely by Olcott. It is on record that the
> creation of the American Section T S was for administrative purposes, as
> in America there were over 5,000 members and 300 Branches by 1895. ( See
> Annual Report.)
>
> Col. Olcott declared it had succeeded; he was then in Spain in July
> 1895.
>
> All this will be fund in detail in the history of the THEOSOPHICAL
> MOVEMENT (1875-1950). I suggested it be procured and then my
> statements can be verified with copies of the documents given there.
>
> HPB's body died May 8th 1891. But I have no record of the H Q moving
> with her to England. It is however agreed that without her and her
> active "agency" there could have been no T S. , Vol. I of the:
> Blavatsky: COLLECTED WORKS makes this plain.
>
> As to the changes made in the SEAL of the T S I do not at present have a
> full record. I do know it is based on H P B's personal seal as a
> countess. It has other symbols and meanings associated with it.
>
> You are correct, the death of a teacher of theosophy (however named)
> usually leads to divisions among their "followers." I would say, it is
> because there is always a tendency to "follow" the literal,
> word-recorded, "eye-doctrine" of the Teacher.
>
> To avoid divisions of this kind ne needs to apprehend and study the
> "heart-doctrine." But this is also subject to interpretations and
> opinions.
>
> So one might conclude that independent study is the ideal method, and a
> loose affiliation of independent students striving to maintain a living
> brotherhood is the best way of perpetuating the memory of the work the
> "teacher" did -- and continues to do in the hearts of his disciples.
>
> No organization and no "leader" is needed. Each one assumes that role
> for themselves.
>
> If one reads carefully all that HPB says about THEOSOPHY you can realize
> that she is speaking of a very ancient system of philosophy, esotericism
> and history. [Both the SECRET DOCTRINE and ISIS UNVEILED give ample
> evidence of this.]
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Dallas
>
>
> ========================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morten
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 6:14 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Manas and Blavatsky on the Christian Mass media...
>
>
>
> Hallo Dallas and all,
>
> My views are:
>
> Very well. That is your view.
> I think we are in to a twist on words more than anything.
>
> Try this quote and se what you have to say about that:
>
> "On March 7, 1879, just three weeks after their arrival in India, Mme.
> Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott rented a small house in the center of
> Bombay at
> 108, Girgaum Back Road. This served as headquarters for their
> theosophical
> and editorial activities until December 1880, when they moved to a more
> spacious bungalow, "The Crow's Nest," at Breach Candy on the outskirts
> of
> Bombay. Here they remained until December 1882 when a formal
> headquarters
> for the Theosophical Society was established at Adyar, Madras.) They
> were,
> on the other hand, viewed with dismay by the Anglo-Indian community,
> particularly by the missionary element. "
> http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/theos/th-kvmts.htm
>
> Does this then not show, that the HQ in practice was - transferred - to
> India about that time ?
>
> Although the HQ issue was sort of dissolved when both W. Q. Judge and
> Olcott
> created the first split - deliberately !? - I would say indeed
> deliberately
> ! - Since then (1891-93-96) there has not been any real official HQ -
> especially because the Agent HPB went into a temporarily 'pralaya'.
>
> And the letter by Blavatsky in Lucifer is much later - namely from 1890.
> And true, because The HQ moved from Adyar with HPB to England - where
> she
> died. Because HPB was the - agent - of the Masters until her death !
>
> More esoterically the HQ was in New York - and still is in New York -
> where
> so many energies are collected. But this is a westernized HQ. .....
>
>
> I have four questions:
> M
> Was the Theosophical Seal changed in the - year1879 - in the manner I
> mentioned ?
>
>
> DTB I do not know
>
>
> M
> And is there any records on why it was changed by Olcott and HPB ?
> Did they just do it for fun ?
> Do you have any clue to why it was changed and also why it was not
> rechanged - the same also on when the break away from Arya Samaj
> occurred ?
>
>
>
> DTB I have no information on this.
>
>
> ======================================
>
>
> M
>
> Now HPB died in 1891.
>
> When a Teacher or 'Agent' dies in a spiritual organisation similar to
> TS,
> the following often happens ---
>
> After the disappearance from the field of a teacher of Wisdom, the
> followers
> will divide themselves into groups, in accordance with their strength
> and
> weaknesses. Some will assume control of others. They may be good or bad,
> and
> this will be shown by their reaction to - the second teacher - when
> he/she
> arrives.
>
> If they realise he/she is their teacher, then they have merely been
> developing themselves and can mature. But if they have become atrophied,
> they will be too blind to recognize the Spirituality of the very
> teacher,
> for which appearance they have been prepared. They may attach
> themselves, in
> default, to a different group. (And this groups existence is maybe no
> coincidence.) Again well and good : providing they return to the
> mainstream
> of teaching when it is offered to them again. This is the test of
> whether
> they have overcome the lower self. They will realise, if they are
> sufficiently developed, that the person who appears to be 'second'
> teacher
> is in reality - the first in importance.
>
> Life is reversed for the undeveloped man (the newcomer), and he/she
> will
> behave in accordance with this. The first teacher does not make life
> easier,
> in most cases, for the generality of disciples. He/She will teach them
> things, which are only of use when the second teacher arrives and
> reality
> falls into place. The object of this is twofold. In the first place,
> certain
> valuable thoughts have been given to the disciples. In the second, they
> are
> tested by the means of these ideas. Just as our western psychologists
> give
> odd-shaped pieces of wood to people, to see how they put them together,
> teachers of Wisdom will give odd-pieces of material of - mental kind -
> to
> his/her followers. - If they try to fit these together however, and to
> make
> a pattern in his/hers - absences, - they are becoming 'fossilised'.
> Because,
> the Wisdom tradition has to show that the object of mankind is not to
> construct idols, but to follow a supreme pattern, which is learnt piece
> by
> piece.
>
> Quite obviously the semi-blind among the people, during their
> 'waiting-period', will try to work out their own interpretation. They
> may,
> as have been done in the past, write books to explain what they have
> learned. This is the danger-point, because when a man/woman is accepted
> as,
> say, a philosopher (of wisdom) because she/he has written a book
> explaining
> a philosophy, he/she will not readily accept, that she/he only have been
> 'fumbling'. He/She has quite possibly become a prisoner of his/hers
> lower
> self. The self-conceit of the man/woman is now bound up with his/hers
> 'creation', the book or the method, which he/she has used to organise
> the
> fragments, which he/she has. He/she is probably or possibly lost - for
> the
> cause.
>
> In order to break through this shell of accretions and fossilisations,
> the - second teacher - will tend to act in a different, perhaps in a
> certain
> dramatically different manner, from the original one. This could happen,
> to
> break the 'idols', which have been formed out of the thoughts, which
> were
> originally given.
>
> So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to
> support a system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way
> in
> which the Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations
> of
> ideas and movements. This seems important to understand and know about.
>
> When a system of teaching of wisdom is in a period of fallowness,
> because
> the one who propagated it is dead, then there comes a period of
> stagnation.
> This period can last between 10 years, 15 years or more. In the time,
> which
> passes, the group of people who is affected by the system are sieved by
> natural means. Some wander away. Others carry on automatically not
> really
> knowing, what they are doing. They are now 'frozen', though they do not
> know
> they are.
>
> The blind may try to lead the blinder. This takes the form of assumption
> of
> authority by those who were given some sort of authority in the original
> mandate. These are the people in the most dangerous position, because
> the
> longer they remain 'orphaned' the more strongly their lower self (or the
> three lower bodies) asserts it self.
>
> Others may modify the teachings in a learned and personal way. Some
> certainly fall a prey to cults, which have come into being in order to
> serve
> them. The people who joins these are at great pains to explain why they
> consider, that they represent the same kind of teaching - and this is
> important. It is important, because it shows the Theosophist or the real
> spiritually minded, very clearly, that the people who try to explain -
> are
> in fact troubled by conscience. Somewhere inside them, they know, that
> they
> are identifying themselves with an imitation, or a second-best. But they
> are
> supported by their lower bodies or lower personality, - and this is too
> strong for them.
>
> Those can be helped by being lead to think in new thinking-patterns and
> systems. It is via the conscience, that one finds the path forward, -
> thereby will be able to remove the limitations of the lower personality.
>
> Imagine a group of people shipwrecked. They think there is no hope of
> rescue. They find a raft, and are glad. After a time more people come
> along
> in a big boat. But the first people will not leave the raft, because
> they
> have become used to it. They may have convinced themselves, that it is
> actually a boat. (So it is to some philosophical or religious people
> today.)
> The points at which the mystical traditions, which are still alive, are
> in
> contact with each other cannot really be explained by the means of
> books.
> And yet people continue to write books showing how they have found this
> and
> that point of resemblance.
>
> The truth can only be found by actual experience, - and easier by
> awareness
> on such aspect as I have touch upon.
>
> To sink ecstasy in Wisdom is better than to sink Wisdom in ecstasy. The
> Wisdom Tradition teaches by several different systems, and not only by
> one, - one book or teen books, BUT also by thousands and thousands of
> books - and the dogmatic ones doesn't want to listen.
>
> And this has indeed happend to TS !
>
>
> Now if the above views are correct - then we could discuss whether and
> ponder the question - who is/was the SECOND TEACHER - whether
> either of - W.Q. Judge, H. S. Olcott, Crosbie, A. Besant, C.W.
> Leadbeater,
> Krishanmurti, Alice A. Bailey, and others continued the work of HPB as
> an
> 'Agent' for the Masters ?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> DTB I know of only one way of making this evaluation: READ THEIR
> WRITINGS. Study the records made of them and their work. The
> evaluation, like it or not, will have always to be a MORAL one.
>
> Do they measure up to what HPB and the Masters taught? And live.
>
> Are they impersonal, universal, unselfish, and do they explain the
> workings of the Universe and our word, as well as the inter-relations of
> all beings?
>
> Do they teach reincarnation, karma, the immortality of the MONAD,
>
> Do they teach the BROTHERHOOD of all living things?
>
> Are they educative and unifying -- or do they destroy?
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> M
>
> It is clear to me, that they didn't do that to the same extent as
> Blavatsky
> did - although some might disagree upon that.
>
> But the teacher was according to HPB awaited as late as 1975. She knew
> that
> from the Masters no doubt. And even Bailey's claims will not change this
> fact - and I think earliere emails by me and others have clearly shown
> that.
>
> Even so Bailey has created something, namely - attetion at UN on what
> Theosophy is, - and this I think we should not ignore.
>
> In the Years around 1909-1925 a claimed overshadowing of an Avatar
> happened.
>
> The name was Krishnamurti. He died as late as 1986.
>
> (His dear friend Rajagopal and later 'enemy' in court - was a follower
> of
> Sathya Sai Baba when he was in his last decade of his physical life.)
> In 1964 - Idries Shah who then lived in England created the beginning to
> an
> enhancement of the theosophical teachings - covering the Middle East.
> Idries
> Shah died 1996.
>
> In the years from 1960-1980 a by himself claimed Avatar became publicly
> know
> by many. His name was and is Sathya Sai Baba. Now they call him a
> child-molester. The India court has ruled, that there is no evidence on
> this.
>
> A woman named Amma has emerged on the scene during tha later two
> decades.
>
> High level politicians and UN officials attend her speeches.Who is she
> ?
>
> Others have emerged - but who could be said to be the so-called SECOND
> TEACHER - ie. the one Blavatsky mentioned ?
>
> The answer blows in the wind...
>
> We are still waiting...
>
> while we meditate on the fact, that - God - ParaBrahman is omnipresent.
>
> *******
>
> from
> M. Sufilight with peace and love...
>
> CUT
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
> DTB As far as I can determine it is better not to look for any
> individual.
>
> Therefore look to the TEACHINGS.
>
> The onus is on each of us: DO WE KNOW WHAT THEOSOPHY TEACHES ?
>
>
> Are we willing to devote our lives (without any desire for a "reward")
> to promulgating THEOSOPHY ? [In the BHAGAVAD GITA, Krishna repeatedly
> tells Arjuna that the secret to wisdom is impersonality, universality
> and refusing to look for a "reward." ]
>
> Each member is a potential "Center." Are we able to make this clear?
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>
> ====================================
>
>
> NOTES:
>
>
> 1
>
>
>
>
>
> CHRONOLOGY 1875 -78
>
>
>
> NOTES ON THE ORIGINAL MINUTES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
>
> SOURCES:
> PATH, Vol. 10, p. 55, May 1894.
> THEOSOPHICAL FORUM, Vol. 1, p. 95-6--(Olcott on)
> OLD DIARY LEAVES, Vol.
> 1,p.114-18,121-2,126-133;137,
> OLD DIARY LEAVES, Vol. 7, p. 326.
>
>
>
> [ Start with Mr. Judge's THE T S AND ITS BASIS, J Art II
> 156 ] From AUSTRAL THEOSOPHIST, June 1894 ]
>
> "As one of those who helped to form the T S, I may claim to
> speak with personal knowledge of the facts, ...
>
>
>
> SEPT 7th 1875
>
> "1. At a meeting held in the rooms of H.P.Blavatsky, 46 Irving Place,
> New York City, Sept. 7, 1875, it was agreed to form a Society for the
> purpose of Occult Study. Upon motion of William Q. Judge, Henry S.
> Olcott was elected Chairman of this meeting, and upon motion of
> H.S.Olcott, William Q. Judge was elected Secretary of the same.
> Adjourned to September 8, 1875...this is ascertained as the facts by
> those who were present. (CWB, Vol. 1, 122)
>
> NOTE:
>
> Col. Olcott, in OLD DIARY LEAVES, Vol. 1, p. 118, remarks
> on this event from memory as follows: (he) "wrote on a scrap of paper:
> "Would it not be a good thing to form a Society for this kind of study
> ?"--and gave it to Judge. H.P.B. read the note and nodded assent."
>
> [He also makes mention of this on p.114 of his book. OLD DIARY LEAVES
> (Olcott) Vol. I
> (CWB, Vol. 1, p. 473, 122-123)
>
> Since Col. Olcott wrote OLD DIARY LEAVES, largely from
> memory, some discrepancies have been observed by historians, these will
> be found chronicled in CWB Vol. I, pp. 72-3, 94, 121, 123-4.
>
> H.P.B. later narrated this event to Mrs. A. Besant, who then
> reported it in the opposite sequence: she [HPB] having originated the
> idea, and then, having a note suggesting the formation of a society
> passed through Judge to Olcott.
> (see LUCIFER, Vol. 12, p. 105, April 1893).
>
> There is no question but Mr. Judge was one of the three founders of the
> Theosophical Society who remained with it.
>
>
>
> SEPT 8th 1875
>
> 2. Pursuant to adjournment, a meeting was held at the same place Sept.
> 8, 1875. It is with this meeting that the minute book begins. Upon
> motion of William Q. Judge it was voted that H.S.Olcott take the Chair,
> and upon motion it was voted that William Q. Judge act as Secretary.
> Upon request of the Chair, sixteen persons handed their names to the
> Secretary, as agreeing to found and belong to such a society. A
> committee of four, including the Chairman, was appointed "to draft a
> constitution and by-laws and to report the same at the next meeting."
> Adjourned to Monday, Sept. 13, 1875, at the same place.
> (PATH Vol. 9, p. 1 - facsimile; CWB, Vol. 1, p. 123-5)
>
>
> SEPT 13TH 1875
>
> 3. Pursuant to adjournment, a meeting was held Sept. 13,
> 1875. H.S.Olcott acted as Chairman and C. Southern as Secretary. The
> Committee on "Preamble and By-laws" reported progress. It was resolved
> that the name of the society be "THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY". The Chair
> appointed a committee to select meeting rooms. "Several new members
> were nominated and upon motion those persons were added to the list of
> Founders." The meeting adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.
>
> OCTOBER 16 1875
>
> 4. Pursuant to a Notice dated at New York, Oct. 13, 1875,
> signed Henry S. Olcott, President pro tem., a meeting was held at
> 206 W 38th St., Oct. 16, l875, "to organize and elect officers."
> Eighteen persons were present. The report of the Committee on
> "Preamble and By-laws" was laid on the table and ordered printed. The
> meeting was adjourned to October 30th l875, at the same place.
> H.S.Olcott was Chairman, and J. S. Cobb, Secretary,
>
>
>
> OCTOBER 30 1875
>
> 5. October 30, 1875, the Society met pursuant to adjournment.
> Mott Memorial Hall, 64 Madison Ave., New York City was selected as the
> Society's meeting place. By-laws were adopted, but with the proviso
> that the "Preamble" should be revised by a committee and then published
> as the "Preamble of the Society." Officers were elected as follows:
> President, Henry S. Olcott; Vice-Presidents, Dr. S. Pancoast and G .H
> .Felt; Corresponding Secretary, Mme. H.P.Blavatsky; Recording
> Secretary, John Storer Cobb; Treasurer, Henry J. Newton; Librarian,
> Charles Southeran; Councilors, Rev. J .H. Wiggin, R. B. Westbrook,
> LL.D., Mrs. Emma Hardinge Britten; C E. Simmons, M.D. and Herbert D.
> Montachesi; Counsel to the Society, William Q. Judge. Adjourned to
> November 17, 1875. ....
> PATH, VOL. 10, P. 55-60;
> CWB, Vol. I, p. 122 - 125; 150; 193; 245-6; 375-8;
> 379-84;
>
>
>
> NOTE
>
> Mme. Blavatsky was by this time (1875) engaged in the
> writing of ISIS UNVEILED. Mr. Judge's brother, John, was of help in
> preparing the manuscript for the printers. Mr. Judge's participation is
> not specified in existent records I have read. DTB.
>
> HPB invited Mr. Judge to help her in 1884 at Enghien, (WQJ
> ART. ULT I 468) : "...while I at her request carefully read over,
> sitting in the same room, Isis Unveiled, making indices at the foot of
> the page, as she intended to use it in preparing the Secret Doctrine."
>
>
> In THE COLLECTED WORKS OF H.P.BLAVATSKY, VOL. I p. 406
> we are told by the editor that the diaries of HPB for the years 1875-77
> "mysteriously disappeared" in Adyar.
>
> The diary for 1878 find Mr. Judge mentioned several times as a visitor
> to HPB in the latter part of the year: [ August 5th and 6th (p. 409);
> Oct 18 (p.413); Oct. 30 (p.416); Nov. 12 (p.420); Dec. 3-4(p.425);
> Dec. 5 (p.426); Dec. 7 (p.427); Dec. 11 (p.429); Dec. 13-15. COLL.
> WKS. B, Vol I, p. 430.]
>
> On December 17th. 1878 Mme. Blavatsky and Col. Olcott boarded a
> steamer to sail via. England, for India; Mr. Judge remained in New
> York.
>
> On Dec. 19th. 1879 (p.433, C W B) Mr. Judge visited them on
> board the steamer prior to its actual departure, while it was still
> anchored inside the bar of the harbor waiting for the tide.
>
>
>
> DECEMBER 17 1878 to FEBRUARY 16 1879
>
> 9. In the year 1878 H.P.Blavatsky and H.S.Olcott were
> appointed under a formal Resolution of the Theosophical Society
> dated------- a "Committee of the Theosophical Society" to visit foreign
> countries and report." The Theosophist for Oct. 1879, Vol. 1, #1, p. 1,
> 1st item, says: "For the convenience of future reference, it may as
> well be stated here that the Committee, sent to India by the
> Theosophical Society, sailed from New York Dec. 17th l878, and landed in
> Bombay, Feb. 16, 1879, having passed two weeks in London on the way."
> (The THEOSOPHIST, Jan. 1880, Vol. 1, p.95).
>
>
> ===========================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>