Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00113)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> It is possible that Blavatsky hypnotised the witnesses
> at the picnic to see what she wanted them to see. Frank
> Podmore advanced this theory to explain many of HPB's
> phenomena.

Podmore is an idiot. That theory is not at all plausible.

Intriguingly, HPB herself advanced this theory. What we might call 
Oriental hypnosis she called "psychological tricks" and said it was 
the basis of most of her phenomena, but I have been persistently 
unable to find any credible evidence that this is possible or any 
description of how it is done. I know both the theory and the 
techniques which allegedly underly "materialization" and the fact 
that there is a theory and practice seems evidential in the matter of 
determining if it happened or not.

The fact that this theory is so complex and well thought out makes it 
clear Blavatsky was in a class by herself relative to others with 
similar interests. One has only to read the dreary stuff published 
by the SPR, which contains loads of stories but no theories to 
explain the observed facts, or the drivel produced by "channelers" 
who never say anything but keep on trying. Blavatsky is virtually 
the OBLY person with an interest in psychical phenomena who lived in 
modern times and who attempted a comprehensive theory for explaining 
them. Unfortunately the explanation of her theory is so disorganized 
that most people cannot make heads or tails of it, but it is 
admirable.

> It is possible that Olcott and Sinnett were in on the
> trick and aided Blavatsky in fooling Henderson, Mahmood
> and Mrs. Reed.

That theory does not satisfy me, since it seems like a form 
of "cheating" on our part to explain everything with confederates. I 
would discount this altogether except that in the story there is 
mention of "the 'Brother' who is helping me" so there was an 
assistant, whether he constituted a confederate or not. I do not 
believe it was Olcott or Sinnett. Sinnett took a very cynical view 
of the phenomena, but I don't believe he was a cofederate. Olcott 
for sure was not a confederate.

> Who buried it then ??? years before?

Bart would probably say that since according to her own account she 
was in India before going to New York Blavatsky herself buried it. 
The problem with that is, since India is a subcontinent and a teacup 
is a small object, she would have to have had considerable foresight 
to bury the thing in exactly the right spot in such a large country.

Consider this from Olcott. He mentions:

"the Tibetan temple [at the site of the teacup manifestation] (which 
by the way, you will see the very image of in a colored painting on 
silk that lies on my bureau in my bed?room, and that was magically 
produced by her for me in New York one day."

That shows that Blavatsky knew of the site before arriving in New 
York. She was in NY before the second visit to India.

> In light of this, are you or Bart STILL contending that one of
> them buried the teacup YEARS BEFORE? Or do you contend someone
> else at Blavatsky's direction buried the teacup? Years before???

That is what Bart says. I think your arguments have some merit to 
them. The teacup is the only one of the phenomena which is difficult 
to explain,

> All historical evidence would indicate the reasonable
> conclusion that only 24 months (2 YEARS) before the teacup
> incident, Blavatsky and Olcott didn't even know of Sinnett's
> existence.

Sinnett was a publisher an therefore a public figure. They could 
have known about him and planned to recruit him before leaving New 
York. So realistically there is no way to know for certain when they 
first became aware of his existence.

> The cup was certainly not buried years in advance by Blavatsky
> or at Blavatsky's direction.

That is probably true. It is Bart's theory, so I will let Bart 
answer your objections. If it was a trick the way Bart insists it 
was it shows a very considerable degree of skill which is not 
evidenced in any of the other phenomena, most of which could be done 
by a ten year old.

> How would Blavatsky know years in advance what set of teacups
> Mrs. Sinnett's servants would pack on that Sunday morning,
> Oct. 3, 1880?

Garrett, Hodgson, etc., would argue that Blavatsky skillfully paced 
her to use that set. This is an argument they used for mahatma 
letters and other phenomena. So this is not as strong a point as it 
appears to be.

> Furthermore, there would never have been a need for an extra
> cup and saucer if Judge Mahmood had not shown up at the last
> moment to go on the picnic.

That is a good point but weaker than it appears because they could 
have EXPECTED Mahmood to show and not expected him to bug out and 
then come in late. The incident could have taken several twists and 
turns, in other words.

> I'm sorry but the burial of the teacup years before
> although POSSIBLE in theoretical terms makes little
> sense (if any) when one compares and contrasts the
> reasonableness of this hypothesis with known historical
> facts and testimonial evidence.

Bart says that's what happened. Bart says it was buried years in 
advance.

> Notice that after the teacup and saucer were
> materialized, that Colonel Henderson said "come
> Madame, produce me a diploma on the spot!" 

That is not entirely accurate. What the story says is that Blavatsky 
skillfully led Henderson to ask for one.

> And going back to my previous post, how did HPB know the
> EXACT location where the cup was buried especially if
> you and Bart still contend that it was buried years
> before? Remember HPB and Olcott had never been to Simla
> before Sept. 1880.

Bart would probably say that the statement that:

"She directed us where to go, describing a certain small mill which 
the Sinnetts, Major Henderson, and even the jampanis (palki wallahs) 
affirmed, did not exist. She also mentioned a small Tibetan temple as 
being near it."

Is a "tell." Blavatsky directed them to the spot where the teacup 
and saucer were buried.

> Furthermore, the party walks for miles through the woods of
> Simla and yet Blavatsky knows the EXACT spot where a cup had
> been buried by someone (???) years before!!!???

That is an excellent point. A critic would point out that Blavatsky 
LED them through the woods to the spot, which is what Olcott says, so 
this is interesting but not conclusive or even persuasive.

> Notice Olcott's words:
>
> "Mr. Mahmood had joined our party after the baskets were
> packed and so when we wanted to have tea we found we were
> one cup and saucer short. Somebody asked Madame to produce
> one by magic. She consented; and, looking about the ground
> here and there, finally called Major Henderson to bring a
> knife and dig in a spot she pointed to."
>
> That was a remarkable feat pointing to the correct spot or was
> she just lucky?? 

Pretty remarkable, but the story says she did not tell him to dig 
just anywhere but searched for a spot, found it, and then pointed it 
out. This after leading them to the specific point in the woods.

> Or do you contend she had cups buried all over
> the place?

You said it. She may have had more teacups than Bloomingdales.