Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00547)

Hello Dallas,
You asked –
"May I ask how much of H P B's writings have you studied?
Excuse this probing question since it is only asked because the depth 
of
your understanding of THEOSOPHY is important to your ability to 
compare her
PHILOSOPHY of THEOSOPHY with CWL's meanderings and deviations 
from "Original
Theosophy."

Dallas to answer the question of the depth of my understanding of 
theosophy, I find an almost impossible question to answer.
All I can say is I've been reading HPB more `in depth' since about 
1996 before that I was mainly only reading Neo-theosophy as far 
as "theosophical" books go.


However to me issues of difference between HPB and CWL in writing 
styles and the mindset that it promotes not only by what's said on 
the surface but what is subtly implied is important to perhaps get an 
insight into why the writings of CWL have such a high `appeal'.
His style to me was one of disempowerment and belief in his 
pronouncements which still plays itself out in the seeming inability 
to be able to openly challenge him in Adyar publications to this day!
This is not simply a historical matter relating to the past, its 
effect are very much with us and continue to play themselves out.

Did he appeal to conformity of conventional norms of his day rather 
than challenge them?
I think he did, just an observation.

Another example of this is while his attitude on masturbation may 
have been "ahead of its time" the practice of sodomy and mutual 
masturbation between males was relatively common practice in certain 
sectors of British society, albeit practiced in secret and `out of 
view'.

So I think CWLs views on this subject even, was not "un conventional" 
in a certain enclave of society,just not spoken about.
It's like in politics its ok to lie but not to get caught lying.

He had to admit to giving this advise AFTER BEING CAUGHT showing more 
than a healthy interest in young boys sexuality.

As we have discovered now with the Catholic church and the British 
public school system these things where / have gone on for a long 
time, just out of view.

I personally now am also in serious doubt as to the veracity of the 
idea that CWLs discovery of Krishnamurti shows the `clearness' of 
CWLs `clair'-voyance.
Are there other rational that could come into play?
Perhaps we have Karma to thank that the young Krisnamurti was the one 
CWL chose rather than CWLs `clairvoyance'.
Maybe Ks education and years of exposure to the fanaticism of what 
was going on around him played a part as well.
All these things while being only supposition on my part still are 
part of my own process of questioning, challenging and investigating.
Are these approaches not valid and in-fact an important aspect of how 
we approach theosophy and teachings of any kind?

While my understandings are no doubt limited and maybe even 
completely wrong I can only progress one step at a time in my own way 
and according to my understanding at this particular point in time.
I hope my perspectives will be able to change as time brings more 
knowledge and hopefully insight rather than simply try and reinforce 
my current ones out of a need for security and comfort.
Should a limited knowledge stop us from asking these questions and 
exploring possibilities?
Rather than just acquiescing to the standard answers given by so 
called authorities and cherished norms.

Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Aug 26 2004
> 
> Dear Perry:
> 
> Re: Linguistic style and persuasion
> 
> 
> When considered by experts these are most useful, but they are not
> definitive.
> 
> But they do not cover the MEANINGS or the CONTENT of what is being 
said or
> transmitted.
> 
> May I ask how much of H P B's writings have you studied?  
> 
> Excuse this probing question since it is only asked because the 
depth of
> your understanding of THEOSOPHY is important to your ability to 
compare her
> PHILOSOPHY of THEOSOPHY with CWL's meanderings and deviations 
from "Original
> Theosophy."
> 
> Briefly:  
> 
> HPB was not writing as a woman but as a "messenger" of the Adepts, 
Elder
> Brothers or "Mahatmas" -- the Masters of Wisdom. If this is not 
perceived
> it is useless to proceed.
> 
> Her "style" varies. It is the MEANINGS she conveyed that are 
important.
> (see brief essay below, please)
> 
> Those who have studied the history of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY and 
of what
> CWL and Annie Besant did to the original teachings look at the 
changes in
> MEANINGS.  
> 
> THEOSOPHY is said to present definite answers to questions -- not
> speculations.  
> 
> If we want to know definitely what THEOSOPHY teaches we have as 
sources the
> writings of 
> 
> H P Blavatsky;
> The Masters of Wisdom -- in Their letters
> W Q Judge -- endorsed by H P B
> 
> 
> To help us there is such a comparison as you suggest there was made 
and
> published in 1925 by Margaret THOMAS (available at
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/index.htm
> 
> the information you may want to consider
> 
> On this subject:
> 
> James A. Santucci, professor of religious studies at
> California State University (Fullerton) and editor of
> "Theosophical History," has written the following
> about Margaret Thomas' book:
> 
> ". . . [Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater] were
> largely responsible for the introduction of new
> teachings that were often in total opposition to the
> Theosophy of [Madame H.P.] Blavatsky and her Masters.
> These teachings were designated by their opponents as
> Neo-Theosophy . . . or less often Pseudo-Theosophy.
> The differences between Theosophy and Neo-Theosophy
> are too numerous to mention in the context of this
> paper. . . . An extensive overview [of the
> differences] is given in . . . Theosophy or
> Neo-Theosophy by Margaret Thomas. . . . " 
> 
> See:
> 
> "Theosophy Versus Neo-Theosophy"
> compiled by Margaret Thomas
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/index.htm
> 
> 
> =====
> 
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "...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. 2
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> To conclude:
> 
> The freedom to think examine and probe THEOSOPHY is open to all, 
but it is
> useless to engage in speculations and probables unless ne has 
acquired a
> sound basis in what THEOSOPHY actually teaches.
> 
> Differences from "original Teachings" always exist in the writings 
of anyone
> who offers advice or comments (including myself of course). So the 
only
> course for the student is to study and make sure they know what and 
where
> the original teachings make definite statements.
> 
> To discuss at large, as you suggest, these two streams of thought 
invites
> speculations -- to what end or benefit?
> 
> We all need to be definite and specific.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> ===============================
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Perry C
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:49 PM
> To: 
> Subject: Linguistic Style and Persuasion
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> It strikes me that the writing styles of C.W Leadbeater and H.P.B 
may 
> be worth looking at more closely as a comparison.
> 
> C.W.L coming from a paternalistic and hierarchical Victorian 
English 
> mindset sore those in the upper echelons as being more capable and 
> competent of making decisions on behalf of the less enlightened 
> masses.
> 
> Therefore CWL `clairvoyantly confirms' for us this order and 
> hierarchy , with all we need to know of nature spirits in their 
> little cute outfits with pointy hats, inner planes with the Logos 
on 
> her (oh no sorry) HIS throne and the resultant effects of rituals 
and 
> ceremonial and how priests really do have a special place in the 
> order of things, 
> 
> Women of course cannot handle these energies so are not able to 
fill 
> this role. ... 
> 
> HPB spoke of hierarchy as well but seemed to express this in a way 
> far more philosophically expansive and open to interpretation and 
> philosophical exploration than CWL's . 
> 
> HPB encourages the reader to explore the philosophies of Kant and 
> Spinoza or the subtleties of Kabbalah...
> 
> The reader by default is exposed to many and various philosophers 
and 
> philosophies in the reading of HPB's works, which to me encourages 
> exploration and further study.
> 
> While she speaks of the Esoteric doctrine coming from a long line 
of 
> seers, the reader is constantly reminded that only though Selfless 
> action , hard work and compassion will Nature ever give the true 
> secrets of life, never though blind belief. 
> 
> The Mahatma's advise Sinnett "never think what would I do" (KH) the 
> Mahatma thus empowering Sinnett to think and act through his own 
> volition rather than simply follow someone else's direction.
> Also the Mahatma says to Sinnett somewhere else "follow the ideal 
> rather than my poor self"...
> 
> CWL's emphasis on devotional practice and psychic powers, 
> following "authorities" or needing messiah's.
> 
> I think tended to promote a blind belief, leader / follower 
mindset 
> rather than the philosophically critical, open and compassionate 
> mindset the Mahatmas where hoping the TS would start to promote.
(Realization
> of Oneness and Universal Brotherhood)
> 
> CWL while saying on the one hand not to believe him but to discover 
> for ourselves, is but the subtle under current is one of  
> disempowerment and re-establishment of old norms. 
> 
> HPBs style and insistence is being ever on guard against 
> pronouncements of any kind and I think promotes and displays a 
> completely different kind of mindset.
> 
> Not being an academic I can't really claim any expert knowledge
> on this subject of writing styles however I think there's something
> to it. 
> 
> Perhaps it has been discussed already on these groups but I think 
it 
> is worth looking at in more depth.
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> Perry
> 
> ==================================
> 
> You may like to consider the following:
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> WHO IS H P B ?
> 
> 
> 
> In recent posts attempts have been made to trivialize H P B and 
compare her
> work with some more modern pseudo psychological, and pseudo-
Theosophical
> labeling.  
> 
> But the one who advances this label has evidently NOT STUDIED 
Theosophy.
> For if he / she had, then we would be reading some evaluation of the
> philosophy and not be having to read a speculative view and 
evaluation of "H
> P B" as a thinker.
> 
> Consider this:
> 
> 
> H. P. BLAVATSKY died May 8, 1891. Or, 113 years ago.
> 
> To some, as a person, she ceased to be on that date. 
> 
> All that survives is a name, a memory, one of countless other names 
and
> memories, the remains of a generation almost extinguished and fast 
fading
> into the indistinguishable monument we call "the past. "
> 
> She is now a mere episode in written and unwritten History -- the 
occidental
> term for the Skandhas of the human race and the personal human 
being. As a
> body, as a mind, as an actor, she has played her part, passed from 
the stage
> and been replaced. 
> 
> But the play goes on. The great drama of life and death, of good 
and evil
> fortune, is not of yesterday and to-day only but of all time, and 
each new
> person, each incoming generation must perforce become both 
spectator and
> actor in the Mysteries. 
> 
> Like many another, H. P. Blavatsky was one who purported to speak 
from
> behind the screen of time, to bear witness and to teach of things 
hidden
> from mortal sight, even that of the wisest among us. 
> 
> What are the credentials of H. P. Blavatsky, Messenger of the 
Masters of
> Wisdom, Elder Brothers of the human race, to us Their younger 
brothers in
> the School of Life?
>  
> Nearest to us of all such Messengers, the claims or credentials of 
H. P. B
> are of vital moment to all searchers for truth and are more readily 
and
> searchingly possible of examination. 
> 
> To determine between claims and credentials is the prime necessity 
of the
> student of life and action. As matters stand from generation to 
generation
> the average searcher for truth is bewildered by the cloud of 
witnesses, by
> the apparently hopeless contradictions in their testimony, by his 
own
> inability to distinguish the true from the false in witnesses and 
in their
> testimony. 
> 
> The experience of the race is that of a continual alteration and 
alternation
> of opinion. 
> 
> We reach a decision one day, one generation, only to reverse it the 
next,
> though all men are aware that the essential facts of life never 
vary, that
> Truth must be in its own nature changeless. 
> 
> Unless we are prepared to admit, and to ourselves act upon the 
admission,
> not only that Truth exists but that we are capable of discerning 
the truth
> in all things, we but stultify our Self in giving any attention at 
all to
> the search for Truth as reflected in such mighty subjects as 
philosophy,
> religion, ethics, science. 
> 
> If we contradict the terms of our own inmost Being, if we render 
our Self
> foolish, incompetent to prove all things and to hold fast to that 
which is
> true, if we allege our Self insane and incapable of determining 
Truth, who
> or what can validate the Truth to us, can make us reasonable?
> 
> 
> But, granting that we are "open to reason," it must follow that we 
are
> bewildered, that we err and wander in our search for Truth, not 
because
> credentials and evidences are lacking to us, but because we do not 
examine
> them in the light of reason and experience.
>  
> The all-inclusive credential of H.P.B. as messenger and witness is 
that she
> addressed herself exclusively to the intelligence of mankind -- 
that is to
> say, to the universal experience, the common sense, the innate 
reason of all
> men, therefore of every man. Her teachings were put forward as in 
no sense a
> revelation. 
> 
> She appealed to the Truth in us, to the truth as known to us, to our
> capacity to assimilate additional truth -- to what the Masters have 
in
> common with us, to what all men have in common with the Masters, as 
the
> bridge of progress, the Antaskarana -thread- of spiritual, as of 
all other
> evolution. 
> 
> What she knew (that is to us unknown), she put forward as a theory, 
as a
> working hypothesis which everyone is invited to examine, test, 
verify, step
> by step, proceeding from the known to the unknown. 
> 
> Compare and contrast this credential with those submitted by the 
revealers,
> the prophets, the priests of every religion and of every sect. 
> 
> Always it is a revelation of one sort or another from a higher to a 
lower
> being -- a revelation which demands belief, which in its very 
nature is
> impossible of proof or disproof by the ones to whom it is offered, 
and which
> promises rewards, or threatens penalties, to those who do or do not 
accept
> it out of hand on the ipse dixit of the revealer. 
> 
> Compare and contrast the credential of H.P.B. with the "working 
hypotheses"
> so freely offered and accepted in modern "exact" science -- working
> hypotheses which do not "work," and of which there is not a single 
one
> submitted by any scientist that other equally eminent scientists 
have not
> exposed as faulty, incomplete, contradicted by known facts. 
> 
> Not a theory or hypothesis propounded by H. P. B. has ever been 
upset
> philosophically, logically, historically or evidentially. 
> 
> Hundreds and thousands have tried it, as invited first and foremost 
by
> H.P.B. herself. The most that any have achieved has been a : "Not 
proven." 
> 
> This is an admission of her impregnability; a confession of their 
own
> inability to impeach her testimony after rigid cross-examination. 
> 
> Invariably the religious or scientific investigator of the 
credential of
> H.P.B. has tested her theories in the light of his own. If her 
propositions
> agreed with his, well and good; if not, they must be false or 
erroneous,
> "not proved," -- that is, "not approved." 
> 
> Assume for one moment that her theories are true, and the inverted 
logic of
> these investigators is instantly self-evident. They did not, and 
they do
> not, compare and contrast theory with theory, hypothesis with 
hypothesis,
> for relative consistency and synthesis, for relative accord with 
known
> facts. 
> 
> It stands to-day as from the beginning; no known fact conflicts 
with or
> discredits a single theorem advanced by H.P.B., while her 
propositions do
> shed the light of reason on all the problems of life, all the 
missing links
> in science and religion; do bring into order and relation, into 
ethical and
> moral purposiveness, all the otherwise bewildering and confused 
mass of the
> facts which constitute the experience of the race and the 
individual; do
> point out the causes of those failures and miseries which our 
religions and
> our sciences seek in vain to explain or alleviate. 
> 
> The individual and personal credential of H. P. B. to every sincere
> searcher for truth is the spiritual fact that her mission is 
educative. 
> 
> She was and is a Teacher of truth. 
> 
> It is through the Hall of Learning alone that we can hope to arrive 
at
> Wisdom on our own account. 
> 
> No miracle, no prayer, no revelation, not even the usually blind 
devotion of
> implicit faith can ever bring any of us one step nearer to the 
Masters of
> Wisdom, to Their real Knowledge of Nature, and, to their Historical 
account
> of our past.. 
> 
> Her life, her labor, her writings, constitute a School of Life, 
into which
> may enter whosoever will to acquire instruction in the mysteries of 
Self;
> instruction in Self-knowledge, Self-discipline, Self-control -- and 
prove
> out to himself and for himself the same credential of The Wisdom. 
[So wrote
> a student in THEOSOPHY, many years ago}.
> 
> 
> One of her contemporaries wrote:
> 
> "...in 1875 she told me that she was then embarking on a work that 
would
> draw upon her unmerited slander, implacable malice, uninterrupted
> misunderstanding, constant work, and no worldly reward. Yet in the 
face of
> this her lion heart carried her on...
> 
> Much has been said of her "phenomena," some denying them, others 
alleging
> trick and device. Knowing her for so many years so well, and 
having seen at
> her hands in private the production of more and more varied 
phenomena that
> it has been the good fortune of all others of her friends put 
together to
> seem I know for myself that she had control of hidden powerful laws 
of
> nature not known to our science, and I also know that she never 
boasted of
> her powers, never advertised their possession, never publicly 
advised anyone
> to attempt their acquirement, but always turned the eyes of those 
who could
> understand her to a life of altruism based on a knowledge of true
> philosophy.
> 
> If the world thinks that her days were spent in deluding her 
followers by
> pretended phenomena, it is solely because her injudicious friends, 
against
> her expressed wish, gave out wonderful stories of her "miracles" 
which can
> not be proved to a skeptical public and which are not the aim of 
the Society
> nor were ever more than mere incidents in the life of H.P.Blavatsky.
> 
> Her aim was to elevate the race.  
> 
> Her method was to deal with the mind of the century as she found 
it, by
> trying to lead it on step by step; to seek out and educate a few 
who,
> appreciating the majesty of the Secret Science and devoted to "the 
great
> orphan Humanity," could carry on her work with zeal and wisdom; to 
found a
> Society whose efforts--however small itself might be--would inject 
into the
> thought of the day the ideas, the doctrines, the nomenclature of 
the Wisdom
> Religion, so that when the next century shall have seen its 75th 
years the
> new messenger coming again into the world would find the Society 
still at
> work, the ideas sown broadcast, the nomenclature ready to give 
expression
> and body to the immutable truth, and thus to make easy the task 
which for
> her since 1875 was so difficult and so encompassed with obstacles 
in the
> very paucity of the language--obstacles harder than all else to work
> against." [So wrote H
> P B's colleague and friend : W. Q. Judge in his 
article: "H.P.B.-A
> Lion-hearted Colleague Passes" ]
> 
> 
> Again he wrote:
> 
> 
> "In 1875, in the city of New York, I first met H.P.B. in this 
life...It was
> her eye that attracted me, the eye of one whom I must have known in 
lives
> long passed away.  
> 
> She looked at me in recognition at that first hour, and never since 
has that
> look changed...Not as a questioner of philosophies did I come before
> her...but as one, wandering many periods through the corridors of 
life, was
> seeking the friends who could show where the designs for the work 
had been
> hidden. And true to the call she responded, revealing the plans 
once again,
> and speaking no words to explain, simply pointed then out and went 
on with
> the task. It was as if but the evening before we had parted, 
leaving yet to
> be done some detail of a task taken up with one common end; it was 
teacher
> and pupil, elder brother and younger, both bent on the one single 
end, but
> she with the power and the knowledge that belong but to lions and 
sages.
> 
> Others I know have looked with suspicion on an appearance they 
could not
> fathom, and though it is true they adduce many proofs which hugged 
to the
> breast, would damn sages and gods, yet it is only through blindness 
they
> failed to see the lion's glance, the diamond heart of H.P.B...she 
was laying
> down the lines of force all over the land...
> 
> The explanation has been offered by some too anxious friends that 
the
> earlier phenomena were mistakes in judgment, attempted to be 
rectified in
> later years by confining their area and limiting their number, 
but...I shall
> hold to her own explanation made in advance and never changed.  
That I have
> given above. For it is easier to take refuge behind a charge of bad
> judgment than to understand the strange and powerful laws which 
control in
> matters such as these.
> 
> Amid all the turmoil of her life, above all the din produced by 
those who
> charged her with deceit and fraud and others who defended, while 
month after
> month, and year after year, witnessed men and women entering the
> theosophical movement only to leave it soon with malignant phrases 
for
> H.P.B., there stands a fact we all might consider--devotion 
absolute to her
> Master. "It was He," she writes, "who told me to devote myself to 
this, and
> I will never disobey and never turn back."...
> 
> Willing in the service of the cause to offer up hope, money, 
reputation,
> life itself, provided the Society might be saved from every hurt, 
whether
> small or great. And thus bound body and soul to this entity called 
the T.
> S., bound to protect it at all hazards, and in the face of every 
loss, she
> often incurred the resentment of many who became her friends but 
would not
> always care for the infant organization as she had sworn to do.  
And when
> they acted as it opposed to the Society, her instant opposition 
seemed to
> them to nullify professions of friendship. Thus she had but few 
friends, for
> it required a keen insight, untinged with personal feeling, to see 
even a
> small part of the real H.P.Blavatsky...
> 
> She worked under directors who, operating from behind the scene, 
knew that
> the T. S. was, and was to be, the nucleus from which help might be 
spread to
> all the people of the day, without thanks and without 
acknowledgment...I
> asked her what was the chance of drawing people into the 
Society...she
> said:--"When you consider those days in 1875 and after, in which 
you could
> not find any people interested in your thoughts, and now look at the
> wide-spreading influence of theosophical ideas--however labeled--it 
is not
> so bad. We are not working that people may call themselves 
Theosophists,
> but that the doctrines we cherish may affect and leaven the whole 
mind of
> this century. This alone can be accomplished by a small earnest 
band of
> workers, who work for no human reward, no earthly recognition, but 
who,
> supported and sustained by a belief in that Universal Brotherhood 
of which
> our Masters are a part, work steadily, faithfully, in understanding 
and
> putting forth for consideration the doctrines of life and duty that 
have
> come down to us from immemorial time. Falter not so long as a few 
devoted
> ones will work to keep the nucleus existing. You were not directed 
to found
> and realise a Universal Brotherhood, but to form the nucleus for 
one; for
> it is only when the nucleus it formed that the accumulations can 
begin that
> will end in future years, however far, in the formation of that 
body which
> we have in view."
> 
> H.P.B. had a lion heart, and on the work traced out for her she had 
a lion's
> grasp, let us...sustain ourselves in carrying out the designs laid 
down on
> the trestle-board, by the memory of her devotion and the 
consciousness that
> behind her task stood, and still remain, those Elder Brothers who, 
above the
> clatter and the din of our battle, ever see the end and direct the 
forces
> distributed in array for the salvation of "that great orphan--
Humanity."
> 
> [W. Q. Judge	-- "Yours till Death and After, H.P.B..." ]
> 
> 
> To close students of Theosophy and to students and friends of H P 
B, Mr.
> Judge wrote:
> 
> "The case I wish to deal with...is this: H.P.B. and her relations 
to the
> Masters and to us; her books and teachings; the general question 
of
> disciples and chelas...Chelas and disciples are of many grades, and 
some of
> the Adepts are themselves the chelas of higher Adepts...[they are 
those who
> have] devoted himself or herself to the service of mankind and the 
pursuit
> of knowledge of the Self...[Some] have gained through knowledge and
> discipline those powers over mind, matter, space, and time which to 
us are
> the glittering prizes of the future...So much being laid down, we 
may next
> ask how we are to look at H.P.B..
> 
> But taking her own sayings, she was a chela or disciple of the 
Masters, and
> therefore stood in relation to them as one who might be chided or 
corrected
> or reproved. She called them her Masters, and asseverated a 
devotion to
> their behests and a respect and confidence in and for their 
utterances which
> the chelas has always for one who is high enough to be his Master.
> 
> But looking at her powers exhibited to the world, and as to which 
one of her
> Masters wrote that they had puzzled and astonished the brightest 
minds of
> the age, we see that compared with ourselves she was an Adept...are 
in fact
> some of the great Rishis and Sages of the past, and people have 
been too
> much in the habit of lowering them to the petty standard of this 
age." But
> with this reverence for her teachers she had for them at the same 
time a
> love and friendship not often found on earth. All this indicates 
her
> chelaship to Them, but in no way lowers her to us or warrants us in 
deciding
> that we are right in a hurried or modern judgment of her.
> 
> Now some Theosophist ask if there are other letters extant from her 
Masters
> in which she is called to account, is called their chela, and is 
chided now
> and then, besides those published. Perhaps yes. And what of it ?  
Let them
> be published by all means, and let us have the full and complete 
record of
> all letters sent during her life; those put forward as dated after 
her
> death will count for naught...since the Masters do not indulge in 
any
> criticisms on the disciples who have gone from earth. As she has 
herself
> published letters and parts of letters from the Masters to her in 
which she
> is called a chela and is chided, it certainly matte if we know of 
others of
> the same sort.
> 
> For over against all such we have common sense, and also the 
declarations of
> her Masters that she was the sole instrument possible for the work 
to be
> done, that They sent her to do it, and that They approved in 
general all she
> did. And she was the first direct channel to and from the Lodge, 
and the
> only one to date through which came the objective presence of the 
Adepts.  
> 
> We cannot ignore the messenger, take the message, and laugh at or 
give scorn
> to the one who brought it to us. There is nothing new in the idea 
that
> letters are still unpublished wherein the Masters put her below 
them, and
> there is no cause for any apprehension. But it certainly is true 
that not a
> single such letter has anything in it putting her below us; she 
must ever
> remain the greatest of the chelas...
> 
> There only remains...the position taken by some and without a 
knowledge of
> the rules governing these matters, that chelas sometimes write 
messages
> claimed to be from the Masters when they are not. this is an 
artificial
> position not supportable by law or rule.  
> 
> It is due to ignorance of what is and is not chelaship, and also to
> confusion between grades in discipleship. It has been used as to 
H.P.B. The
> false conclusion has first been made that an accepted chela of high 
grade
> may become accustomed to dictation by the Master and then may fall 
into the
> false pretense of giving something from himself and pretending it 
is from
> the Master. It is impossible. The bond in her case was not of 
such a
> character to be dealt with thus. One instance of it would destroy 
the
> possibility of any more communication from the teacher. It may be 
quite
> true that probationers now and then have imagined themselves as 
ordered to
> say so and so, but that is not the case of an accepted and high 
chela who is
> irrevocably pledged...This idea, then, ought to be abandoned; it 
is absurd,
> contrary to law, to rule, and to what must be the case when such 
relations
> are established as existed
> between H.P.B. and her Masters."	[W. Q. Judge --
"Masters,
> Adepts, Teachers and Disciples" ]
> 
> 
> A fragment concerning her life and relations with the THEOSOPHICAL 
SOCIETY
> reads:
> 
> 
> ".....in 1875, in New York, she started the Theosophical Society, 
aided by
> Col. H. S. Olcott and others, declaring its objects to be the 
making of a
> nucleus for a universal brotherhood, the study of ancient and other
> religions and sciences, and the investigation of the psychical and 
recondite
> laws affecting man and nature. 
> 
> There certainly was no selfish object in this, nor any desire to 
raise
> money. She was in receipt of funds from sources in Russia and other 
places
> until they were cut off by reason of her becoming an American 
citizen, and
> also because her unremunerated labors for the society prevented her 
doing
> literary work on Russian magazines, where all her writings would be 
taken
> eagerly. 
> 
> As soon as the Theosophical Society was started she said to the 
writer that
> a book had to be written for its use. Isis Unveiled was then begun, 
and
> unremittingly she worked at it night and day until the moment when a
> publisher was secured for it.
> 
> Meanwhile crowds of visitors were constantly calling at her rooms 
in Irving
> Place, later in Thirty-fourth street, and last in Forty-seventh 
street and
> Eighth avenue. The newspapers were full of her supposed powers or of
> laughter at the possibilities in man that she and her society 
asserted. 
> 
> A prominent New York daily wrote of her thus:
> 
> "A woman of as remarkable characteristics as Cagliostro himself, 
and one who
> is every day as differently judged by different people as the 
renowned Count
> was in his day. By those who know her slightly she is called a 
charlatan;
> better acquaintance made you think she was learned; and those who 
were
> intimate with her were either carried away with belief in her power 
or
> completely puzzled." 
> 
> In 1877 ISIS UNVEILED attracted wide attention, and all the New 
York papers
> reviewed it, each saying that it exhibited immense research. 
> 
> The strange part of this is, as I and many others can testify as
> eyewitnesses to the production of the book, that the writer had no 
library
> in which to make researches and possessed no notes of investigation 
or
> reading previously done. 
> 
> All was written straight out of hand. And yet it is full of 
references to
> books in the British Museum and other great libraries, and every 
reference
> is correct. Either, then, we have, as to that book, a woman who was 
capable
> of storing in her memory a mass of facts, dates, numbers, titles, 
and
> subjects such as no other human being ever was capable of, or her 
claim to
> help from unseen beings is just.
> 
> =================================
> 
> DTB