Theos-Talk Archives (July 2005 Message tt00061)

Concerning what Carlos Cardoso Aveline writes about
my book THE ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY 
(see his comments at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/27558 )
I would like to say the following:

In regards to Aveline's comments about the adding 
of negative accounts by Coulomb and
Hodgson, etc. to the Wheaton edition of my book, it was MY
decision and only MY decision to add them so that
readers could see what the charges against HPB were,
especially since many of the other accounts by
"friendly" witnesses refer to these charges, and even
make comments about the charges, etc. 

I saw no good reason to hide the "negative" accounts from
readers....And by giving the accounts, the reader can
start to understand the relevance of what the other
witnesses say. 

Furthermore, I was motivated to include them
in light of what HPB once wrote:

"...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. 218.

I wanted the reader to be able to compare notes and
hear both sides. What is wrong with that?

Notice ALSO that in some of my editorial notes
attention is called to the conflicting testimony and
even to the falsity of the charges against HPB:

p. 185: "Her phenomena and the reality of her
teachers were both controversial matters, eliciting
both believing acceptance (sometimes with independent
confirmation) and skeptical rejection, as the
following selections will illustrate."

p. 205: "Emma Coulomb later claimed that she
collaborated with HPB at Adyar, as she had earlier in
Bombay, in producing false phenomena; however, her
descriptions of what she did are not consistent with
the observatations of others, who witnessed the
phenomena, both Indian and Westerners, as some of the
following selections demonstrate."

p. 263: "Meanwhile, a vicious attack on Blavatsky by
two of her staff members at Adyar, Alexis and Emma
Coulomb, was rapidly building up....She wished to sue
the couple, already dismissed from Adyar for their
gross libel concerning her supposedly fraudulent
production of psychic phenomena...."

p. 264: "The Coulomb attack, as was later evident,
had no solid foundation whatsoever. It was based on
forged and partially forged letters, purporting to
have been written by H.P. Blavatsky, with instructions
to arrange fraudulent psychic phenomena of various
kinds."

p. 264: In 1963, Adlai Waterman....refuted Hodgson's
contentions against Madame Blavatsky....Another
refutation of some of Hodgson's charges against HPB is
Vernon Harison's article...."

p. 406: "In May 1884, the Coulomb couple were
expelled from the Theosophial Society for theft,
attempted extortion and slander...."

p. 415: "At first, relations between the two were
friendly but Solovyov turned against HPB and wrote a
book....in which he attempted to protray HPB as a
fraud."....Hasting, SOLOVYOFF'S FRAUD....

[OBTW, the one selection by Solovyoff in the book is
not negative towards HPB as the recent FOHAT article
states!]

Surely the perceptive reader will be able to see that
one should take what these writers say with a grain of
salt.

Furthermore, I specifically selected the material by
Coulomb and Hodgson to put in JUXTAPOSITION with other
accounts which show that what they (Coulomb and
Hodgson) say about, for example, the appearances of
the Masters, must surely be off the mark, to say the
least or as I believe.....wrong...false.

If anything, the accounts by the above "enemies" of
HPB found next to other accounts will make the reader
.... THINK about the charges. And if they are
perceptive at all, they should at least conclude that
the Coulomb/Hodgson charges should not be taken at
face value without carefully considering other
material which is also found in the book.

And hopefully some thoughtful readers will dig deeper
and determine for themselves what happened....

Daniel H. Caldwell
http://hpb.cc