Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00443)

Hallo all,

My views are:

Yes. Not 1861 I agree.
Knowing about Wacthmeister I would not say 1861.
But I have though difficulties in understanding how you reach the following
conclusion of yours so definitely
as if you in the below has actually proven me wrong ?
Allright - Maybe not a typo.
What about an esoteric number ?
What about CWL was actually 4 years of age and Morya unofficially said to
him:
"You will die shortly and reincarnate as CWL in a few years time. I will
help you - -- also making typo's and all..." ?


Daniel wrote:
"All of the above shows that 1851 is certainly not a typo."

Maybe I would say..hmm...and - not "certainly".
Let us be fair.

And maybe Chuck isn't such a heretical typo after all. (smile...)


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...and a smile...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 7:27 PM
Subject: Theos-World Morten: Isn't it possible 1851 is not correct... that
it is a typo or....or ...


> Morten
>
> You wrote concerning the 1851 date as given in
> Leadbeater's account of meeting the Master Morya
> in London:
>
> "Maybe 1851 is an esoteric number or a spelling error.
> The true year is 1861 or...?"
>
> Well, MAYBE ... but .....
>
> MAYBE .... 1851 is NOT an esoteric number...
>
> MAYBE .... 1851 is NOT a spelling error....
>
> MAYBE .... 1851 is NOT 1861.
>
> Morten, you have simply proven the basic
> idea given by Ray Hyman in his statement
> that
>
> IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO IMAGINE SOME SCENARIO
> IN WHICH......
>
> but where is the evidence to confirm
> or disconfirm these MAYBEs?
>
> Here are some of the relevant facts.
>
> Where did the 1851 date come from?
>
> In 1893 in her book on Madame Blavatsky,
> the Countess Constance Wachtmeister wrote:
>
> =============================================
>
> When she [HPB]was in London, in 1851 . . . she was one day out
> walking when, to her astonishment, she saw a tall Hindu in the street
> with some Indian princes. She immediately recognized him as the same
> person that she had seen in the Astral. Her first impulse was to rush
> forward to speak to him, but he made her a sign not to move, and she
> stood as if spellbound while he passed on. The next day she went into
> Hyde Park for a stroll, that she might be alone and free to think
> over her extraordinary adventure. Looking up, she saw the same form
> approaching her, and then her Master told her that he had come to
> London with the Indian princes on an important mission
>
> ============================================
>
> Isn't it obvious therefore that Leadbeater is also
> referring to the SAME event and SAME year 1851?
>
> Moving on.....
>
> A.J. Hamerster wrote an biographical article about CWL in the
> 1932 ROUND TABLE ANNUAL. Hamerster submitted the article
> before publication to Mr. Leadbeater who "enriched
> the original manuscript with notes, corrections and
> suggestions" and approved the article as accurate.
> [See Tillett's biography of C.W.L., p. 11.]
>
> In this article Leadbeater's birthdate is given as
> Feb. 17, 1847.
>
> Now compare this date 1847 with the account by
> Leadbeater. I give only a snippet:
>
> ================================================
>
> Madame Blavatsky . . . met the Master Morya
> in Hyde Park, London, in the year 1851. . . .
> I myself, then a little child of four, saw Him also.
>
> ===============================================
>
> Let's ignore the 1851 date in the text. And
> focus on Leadbeater statement that he was four
> years old at the time.
>
> Take the 1847 birthdate given by Hamerster and
> add 4 years to it.
>
> 1847 + 4 = 1851
>
> All of the above shows that 1851 is certainly not a typo.
>
> And one could also comb through Leadbeater's other books
> and articles and see if he mentions this London
> incident and the 1851 date elsewhere. This would supply
> more evidence.
>
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>