Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt01091)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> I see that you accept Richard Hodgson's
> contention

Part of his contention. Blavatsky said that the mahatmas did not 
write the mahatma letters and that they were written by "chelas" 
(using the plural to show that there were more than one but not 
naming them.) It is apparent that Blavatsky herself was one of 
the "chelas" and Hodgson identified Damodar as the other one. That 
this is true can be seen from the Shannon letter in which Blavatsky 
is identified as the only chela since 1885, which was the year 
Damodar left the theosophical scene. I don't see how any reasonable 
person can examine all the evidence and deny the truth. One would 
have to be a fundamentalist to do that.

The fact that Damodar froze to death in the snows of northern India 
trying to get into Tibet indicates quite clearly that Hodgson was 
wrong about him being a confederate and a vulgar cheat. I am well 
aware of the fact that K. Paul Johnson and others insist that Damodar 
never went to Tibet but became a wealthy landlord and that this was 
one of the frauds.

> In the 1885 S.P.R. Report, Hodgson gives
> in plate II, 8 facsimiles of K.H.'s handwriting
> and 2 facsimiles of Damondar's handwriting.

Judge himself delighted in demonstrating that the mahatma script 
could be easily forged.

I am curious how the Kirk opinion you submit is dated 1864, long 
before the theosophical society was founded, and commented on a 
document sunmitted in 1904, forty years later. Did Kirk have a time 
machine?

If you deny that the mahatma script could be forged, then you have to 
admit that Blavatsky was not the infallible critter that all her 
armchair yogis and idle readers think she was. She says the mahatmas 
did not write the letters.