Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01899)

I can just imagine the director's cut DVD-- with 57 hours of bonus material.

-Mark H.

On 4/29/05, leonmaurer@aol.com <leonmaurer@aol.com> wrote:
> Cass,
> The only place I can imagine it, at least in part, being in the movie in one
> short scene -- would be on the manuscript of the article HPB is writing after
> she finished being in blue funk rage telling Olcott how everyone running the
> Adyar TS was screwing up the movement. :-)  But, then, all these out of context
> incidents in her life are too much to think about before the writer (whoever
> it might be) comes up with a good screenplay for the first movie.  If we keep
> thinking like this, one incident at a time, her entire life story might turn
> into a series longer than Star Trek. :-)
> Leon
> 
> In a message dated 04/21/05 1:10:10 AM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:
> 
> >Dear Leon,
> >This piece has to be part of the movie!
> >Cass
> >
> 
> "W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> Wednesday, April 20, 2005
> 
> Dallas says:
> 
> Correction:
> 
> As I see it from documents:
> 
> In 1905 only Col. Olcott, President Founder was still alive. He died in
> 
> Feb. 1907.
> 
> Both HPB and Judge disagreed with the idea that Adyar had any special
> 
> quality or value. They died respectively in 1891 and 1896
> 
> The Adyar property was acquired in 1882, the editorial work of the
> 
> THEOSOPHIST was removed from Bombay to Adyar; HPB had her rooms there, and
> 
> Col. Olcott declared it the HQ of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
> 
> Dallas
> 
> ========================
> 
> HPB provided the principles:
> 
> A PUZZLE FROM ADYAR
> 
> H. P. Blavatsky
> 
> WHEN the cat is abroad the mice dance in the house it seems. Since Colonel
> 
> Olcott sailed for Japan, the Theosophist has never ceased to surprise its
> 
> European readers, and especially the Fellows of our Society, with most
> 
> unexpected capers. It is as if the Sphinx had emigrated from the Nile and
> 
> was determined to continue offering her puzzles broadcast to the Œdipuses of
> 
> the Society.
> 
> Now what may be the meaning of this extraordinary, and most tactless
> 
> "sortie" of the esteemed acting editor of our Theosophist? Is he, owing to
> 
> the relaxing climate of Southern India, ill, or like our (and his)
> 
> editor-enemies across the Atlantic, also dreaming uncanny dreams and seeing
> 
> Lying visions--or what? And let me remind him at once that he must not feel
> 
> offended by these remarks, as he has imperatively called them forth himself.
> 
> LUCIFER, the PATH and the THEOSOPHIST are the only organs of communication
> 
> with the Fellows of our Society, each in its respective country. Since the
> 
> acting editor of the Theosophist has chosen to give a wide publicity in his
> 
> organ to abnormal fancies, he has no right to expect a reply through any
> 
> other channel than LUCIFER. Moreover, if he fails to understand all the
> 
> seriousness of his implied charges against me and several honourable men, he
> 
> may realise them better, when he reads the present.
> 
> Already his enigmatical letter to Light has done mischief enough. While its
> 
> purport was evidently to fight some windmills of his own creation, an
> 
> inimical spiritualist who signs "Colenso" has jumped at the good opportunity
> 
> afforded him to misrepresent that letter. In his malicious philippic called
> 
> "Koothoomi Dethroned" he seeks to show that Mr. Harte's letter announces
> 
> that the "Masters" are thrown overboard by the T. S. and "Mme. Blavatsky
> 
> dethroned." Is it this that "Richard Harte, acting editor of the
> 
> Theosophist," sought to convey to the Spiritualists in his letter in Light
> 
> of July 6th?
> 
> Without further enquiry as to the real meaning of the Light letter, what
> 
> does he try to insinuate by the following in the July number of the
> 
> Theosophist?
> 
> A DISCLAIMER
> 
> The Editor of the Theosophist has much pleasure in publishing the following
> 
> extracts from a letter from Mr. Bertram Keightley, Secretary of the
> 
> "Esoteric Section" of the Theosophical Society, to one of the Commissioners,
> 
> which have been handed to him for publication. It should be explained that
> 
> the denial therein contained refers to certain surmises and reports afloat
> 
> in the Society, and which were seemingly corroborated by apparently
> 
> arbitrary and underhand proceedings by certain Fellows known to be members
> 
> of the Esoteric Section.
> 
> To this 1, the "Head of the Esoteric Section," answer:
> 
> 1. Mr. Bertram Keightley's letter, though containing the truth, and nothing
> 
> but the truth, was never intended for publication, as a sentence in it
> 
> proves. Therefore the acting Editor had no right to publish it.
> 
> 2. Fellows of the E. S. having to be first of all Fellows of the
> 
> Theosophical Society, what does the sentence "Fellows known to be members of
> 
> the E. S."--who stand accused by Mr. Harte (or even by some idiotic reports
> 
> afloat in the Society) of "arbitrary and underhand proceedings"--mean? Is
> 
> not such a sentence a gross insult thrown into the face of honourable
> 
> men--far better Theosophists than any of their accusers--and of myself?
> 
> 3. What were the silly reports? That the "British or the American Section,"
> 
> and even the "Blavatsky Lodge" of the Theosophical Society wanted to "boss
> 
> Adyar." For this is what is said in the Theosophist in the alleged
> 
> "disclaimer":
> 
> Mr. Keightley tells this Commissioner that he must not believe "that the
> 
> Esoteric Section has any, even the slightest, pretension to `boss' the
> 
> Theosophical Society or anything of the kind." Again he says: "We are all,
> 
> H.P.B. first and foremost, just as loyal to the Theosophical Society and to
> 
> Adyar as the Colonel can possibly he." And yet again he says: 1 have nothing
> 
> more to say, except to repeat in the most formal and positive manner my
> 
> assurance that there is not a word of truth in the statement that the
> 
> Esoteric Section has any desire or pretension to `boss' any other part or
> 
> Section of the T. S."
> 
> Amen! But before I reproduce the acting editor's further marvellous comments
> 
> thereon, I claim the right to say a few words on the subject. Since, as
> 
> said, the letter was never meant to be paraded in print--chiefly, perhaps,
> 
> because qui s' excuse s'accuse--it is no criticism to show that it contains
> 
> that which I would describe as a meaningless flap-doodle, or, rather, a pair
> 
> of them, something quite pardonable in a private and hastily-written letter,
> 
> but quite unpardonable and grotesque when appearing as a published document.
> 
> 1st. That the E. S. had never any pretensions to "boss the T. S." stands to
> 
> reason: with the exception of Col. Olcott, the President, the Esoteric
> 
> Section has nothing whatever to do with the Theosophical Society, its
> 
> Council or officers. It is a Section entirely apart from the exoteric body,
> 
> and independent of it, H.P.B. alone being responsible for its members, as
> 
> shown in the official announcement over the signature of the President
> 
> Founder himself. It follows, therefore, that the E. S., as a body, owes no
> 
> allegiance whatever to the Theosophical Society, as a Society, least of all
> 
> to Adyar.
> 
> 2nd. It is pure nonsense to say that "H.P.B.... is loyal to the Theosophical
> 
> Society and to Adyar" (!?). H.P.B. is loyal to death to the Theosophical
> 
> CAUSE, and those great Teachers whose philosophy can alone bind the whole of
> 
> Humanity into one Brotherhood. Together with Col. Olcott, she is the chief
> 
> Founder and Builder of the Society which was and is meant to represent that
> 
> CAUSE; and if she is so loyal to H. S. Olcott, it is not at all because of
> 
> his being its "President," but, firstly, because there is no man living who
> 
> has worked harder for that Society, or been more devoted to it than the
> 
> Colonel, and, secondly, because she regards him as a loyal friend and
> 
> co-worker. Therefore the degree of her sympathies with the "Theosophical
> 
> Society and Adyar" depends upon the degree of the loyalty of that Society to
> 
> the CAUSE. Let it break away from the original lines and show disloyalty in
> 
> its policy to the CAUSE and the original programme of the Society, and
> 
> H.P.B., calling the T. S. disloyal, will shake it off like dust from her
> 
> feet.
> 
> And what does "loyalty to Adyar" mean, in the name of all wonders? What is
> 
> Adyar, apart from that CAUSE and the two (not one Founder, if you please)
> 
> who represent it? Why not loyal to the compound or the bath-room of Adyar?
> 
> Adyar is the present Headquarters of the Society, because these
> 
> "Headquarters are wherever the President is," as stated in the rules. To be
> 
> logical, the Fellows of the T. S. had to be loyal to Japan while Col. Olcott
> 
> was there, and to London during his presence here. There is no longer a
> 
> "Parent Society"; it is abolished and replaced by an aggregate body of
> 
> Theosophical Societies, all autonomous, as are the States of America, and
> 
> all under one Head President, who, together with H. P. Blavatsky, will
> 
> champion the CAUSE against the whole world. Such is the real state of
> 
> things.
> 
> What then, again, can be the meaning of the following comments by the acting
> 
> Editor, who follows Mr. Keightley's letter with these profoundly wise
> 
> remarks:
> 
> It is to be hoped that after this very distinct and authoritative disclaimer
> 
> no further "private circulars" will be issued by any members of the Esoteric
> 
> Section, calling upon the Fellows to oppose the action of the General
> 
> Council, because "Madame Blavatsky does not approve of it"; and also that
> 
> silly editorials, declaring that Theosophy is degenerating into obedience to
> 
> the dictates of Madame Blavatsky, like that in a recent issue of the
> 
> Religio-Philosophical Journal, will cease to appear.
> 
> The "private circulars" of the E.S. have nothing to do with the acting
> 
> editor of the Theosophist nor has he any right to meddle with them.
> 
> Whenever "Madame Blavatsky does not approve" of "an action of the General
> 
> Council,"1 she will say so openly and to their faces. Because (a) Madame
> 
> Blavatsky does not owe the slightest allegiance to a Council which is liable
> 
> at any moment to issue silly and untheosophical ukases; and (b) for the
> 
> simple reason that she recognizes but one person in the T. S. besides
> 
> herself, namely Colonel Olcott, as having the right of effecting fundamental
> 
> re-organizations in a Society which owes its life to them, and for which
> 
> they are both karmically responsible. If the acting editor makes slight
> 
> account of a sacred pledge, neither Col. Olcott nor H. P. Blavatsky are
> 
> likely to do so. H. P. Blavatsky will always bow before the decision of the
> 
> majority of a Section or even a simple Branch; but she will ever protest
> 
> against the decision of the General Council, were it composed of Archangels
> 
> and Dhyan Chohans themselves, if their decision seems to her unjust, or
> 
> untheosophical, or fails to meet with the approval of the majority of the
> 
> Fellows. No more than H. P. Blavatsky has the President Founder the right of
> 
> exercising autocracy or papal powers, and Col. Olcott would be the last man
> 
> in the world to attempt to do so. It is the two Founders and especially the
> 
> President, who have virtually sworn allegiance to the Fellows, whom they
> 
> have to protect, and teach those who want to be taught, and not to tyrannize
> 
> and rule over them.
> 
> And now I have said over my own signature what I had to say and that which
> 
> ought to have been said in so many plain words long ago. The public is all
> 
> agog with the silliest stories about our doings, and the supposed and real
> 
> dissensions in the Society. Let every one know the truth at last, in which
> 
> there is nothing to make any one ashamed, and which alone can put an end to
> 
> a most painful and strained feeling. This truth is as simple as can be.
> 
> The acting editor of the Theosophist has taken it into his head that the
> 
> Esoteric Section together with the British and American Sections, were
> 
> either conspiring or preparing to conspire against what he most curiously
> 
> calls "Adyar" and its authority. Now being a most devoted fellow of the T.
> 
> S. and attached to the President, his zeal in hunting up this mare's nest
> 
> has led him to become more Catholic than the Pope. That is all, and I hope
> 
> that such misunderstandings and hallucinations will come to an end with the
> 
> return of the President to India. Had he been at home, he, at any rate,
> 
> would have objected to all those dark hints and cloaked sayings that have of
> 
> late incessantly appeared in the Theosophist to the great delight of our
> 
> enemies. We readily understand that owing to lack of original contributions
> 
> the acting editor should reproduce a bungled up and sensational report from
> 
> the N. Y. Times and call it "Dr. Keightley speaks." But when jumping at a
> 
> sentence of Dr. Keightley's, who in speaking of some "prominent members,"
> 
> said that they had been "abandoned or been read out of the fold," he gravely
> 
> adds in a foot-note that this is "another mistake of the reporter," as "no
> 
> Fellow of the Theosophical Society has been expelled of recent years"; it is
> 
> time some one should tell the esteemed acting editor plainly that for the
> 
> pleasure of hitting imaginary enemies he allows the reader to think that he
> 
> does not know what he is talking about. If through neglect at Adyar the
> 
> names of the expelled Fellows have not been entered in the books, it does
> 
> not follow that Sections and Branches like the "London Lodge" and others
> 
> which are autonomous have not expelled, or had no right to expel, any one.
> 
> Again, what on earth does he mean by pretending that the reporter has
> 
> "confounded the Blavatsky Lodge with the Theosophical Society?" Is not the
> 
> Blavatsky Lodge, like the London, Dublin, or any other "Lodge," a branch of,
> 
> and a Theosophical Society? What next shall we read in our unfortunate
> 
> Theosophist?
> 
> But it is time for me to close. If Mr. Harte persists still in acting in
> 
> such a strange and untheosophical way, then the sooner the President settles
> 
> these matters the better for all concerned.
> 
> Owing to such undignified quibbles, Adyar and especially the Theosophist are
> 
> fast becoming the laughing stock of Theosophists themselves as well as of
> 
> their enemies; the bushels of letters received by me to that effect, being a
> 
> good proof of it.
> 
> I end by assuring him that there is no need for him to pose as Colonel
> 
> Olcott's protecting angel. Neither he nor I need a third party to screen us
> 
> from each other. We have worked and toiled and suffered together for fifteen
> 
> long years, and if after all these years of mutual friendship the President
> 
> Founder were capable of lending ear to insane accusations and turning
> 
> against me, well--the world is wide enough for both. Let the new Exoteric
> 
> Theosophical Society headed by Mr. Harte, play at red tape if the President
> 
> lets them and let the General Council expel me for "disloyalty," if again,
> 
> Colonel Olcott should be so blind as to fail to see where the "true friend"
> 
> and his duty lie. Only unless they hasten to do so, at the first sign of
> 
> their disloyalty to the CAUSE--it is I who will have resigned my office of
> 
> Corresponding Secretary for life and left the Society. This will not prevent
> 
> me from remaining at the head of those--who will follow me.
> 
> H. P. BLAVATSKY
> 
> Lucifer, August, 1889
> 
> 1 Or "Commissioners" of whom Mr. R. Harte is one. [Ed.]
> 
> =============================
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: christinaleestemaker
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 6:14 AM
> 
> To:
> 
> Subject: Re: NONSENSE - NO NONSENSE
> 
> ========================================
> 
> -Hallo Leon,
> 
> As a lot of Americans ignore mother earth
> 
> also they do with TheosSocietyAdyar
> 
> That NONSENSE I must correct for you
> 
> It is NO NONSENSE
> 
> because HPB, Olcott and WQJ formed the Society in America (nov 17 1875)
> 
> and they (planted) incorporated at Madras!(April 3, 1905)
> 
> SEE inside the cover of The American Theosophist.
> 
> Christina
> 
> -- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 04/17/05 12:56:09 PM, AnandGholap@A... writes:
> 
> Adyar TS is the only true Theosophical Society which Masters
> 
> founded.
> 
> Anand Gholap
> 
> ===========================
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The first and only true "Theosophical Society" was founded in New York City
> 
> in 1875 By H. P. Blavatsky, William Q. Judge and Henry Olcott. (and
> 
> others)
> 
> The only "Masters" at that time were those real individual Adepts who
> 
> directly instructed HPB. These Adepts, themselves, "founded" nothing --
> 
> although they helped HPB write Isis Unveiled and the Secret Doctrine.
> 
> All "true" theosophy was contained in those books which became the basic
> 
> study texts of the original Society.
> 
> All other so called "Theosophical Societies" came years later after AB
> 
> succeeded, following HPB's death, in usurping and tearing apart the original
> 
> Society by doctoring the text books, hooking up with CWL and trying to turn
> 
> theosophy into a Christian-like messianic religion that was in direct
> 
> contradiction to the Masters (and HPB's) fundamental teachings.
> 
> This false religion was later exposed by Krishnamurti, their supposed
> 
> Messiah...
> 
> CUT
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Mark Hamilton Jr.
waking.adept@gmail.com