[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Brigitte Muehlegger on Rawson and my comments

Dec 20, 2004 10:56 AM
by Daniel H. Caldwell

You [Brigitte Muehlegger] also wrote:

"I therefore don't think Rawson's testimony 
about Blavatsky should be dismissed, he is certainly 
one of the few people that know of the 
more intimate aspects of Blavatsky's life. And 
his aquintance with Blavatsky goes further back 
then that of Olcott and Blavatsky."

I agree that we should not hastily dismiss 
Rawson's testimony but we should not try to 
read into his testimony more than what is there 
stated. For example, what is the SPECIFIC 
evidence that supports your statement that 
Rawson "is certainly one of the few people that 
know of the more intimate aspects of Balvatsky's 
life." For what period of time did Rawson know 
Blavatsky? Did Rawson actually know 
more about the intimate aspects of HPB's life than 
Olcott or Wachtmeister did? And if you say "Yes", 
how do you know that is a true statement? 

For example, Paul Johnson says Rawson was a life long friend of 
Blavatsky, but where is the evidence to support that generalization? 
How much contact was there between Blavatsky and Rawson in the time 
period 1879 through 1891, for example? Before Blavatsky came to 
America in 1873, how much contact had she had with Rawson? Did 
Rawson have more contact in America with Blavatsky than Olcott or 
Wilder or Judge? What we need here is evidence that answers these 
questions, not just speculation paraded as factual statements.

Daniel Caldwell
Quoted from:
Quoted from 

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application