Theos-Talk Archives (September 2005 Message tt00249)

Hi Daniel,

As we are aparently all rallying into your defence (sure that wasn't
good English, but alright) I guess this is as good a time as any to
send in a letter I also sent to Fohat. I do hope they will publish it.
But the readers of Theos-talk will get it first:

Dear editors,

The issue of Fohat, Fall, 2005, again places the volume `The Esoteric
World of Madame Blavatsky' edited by Daniel Caldwell under discussion.
The same type of arguments are used against `The Letters of H.P.
Blavatsky' as edited by John Algeo. What the editors and some
contributers to Fohat seem to fail to understand is that neither book
is written to defend or attack anybody. Both give a collection of
sources from which the unbiased observer can draw their own
conclusions on both Madame Blavatsky herself and her contemporaries.
This is the kind of sourcebook that historians love. In the case of
Caldwell's book – it is merely a selection of the many documents on
H.P. Blavatsky's life that he has collected on his website `Blavatsky
Archives'. 
Daniel Caldwell is a dominant personality on the internet. His
discussions on Madame Blavatsky show a determined wish to make it
clear that her Masters were real. His recurrent arguments with Paul
Johnson were infamous in their time. 
In light of this fact, he must be rather shocked to see his historical
labours being treated as some sort of treason. 
It is the refrain Fohat seems glad to repeat: "How dare one question?
How dare one make an issue clearer by showing conflicting testimony?"
It is from the work of people like Caldwell and Algeo that the real
Blavatsky can perhaps be seen. Blavatsky DID perform phenomena. She
also probably faked a few. Does that limit her work? No, her books and
articles will likely stand the test of time – at least the coming
century that is, if her own prophesy is to come true, which it seems
likely to do. Blavatsky was no saint and never claimed to be one. My
guess is she struggled between her eastern and her western side and
who knows what occult influences were added in the mix. She was a very
complex person and her place in history as ground breaking esotericist
and one of the two first western Buddhists (Olcott being the other) is
starting to get recognized. Within that context both books under
discussion are of great importance. And if the belated advice as
handed out in Fohat had been followed, neither of these books would
have been as useful to scientists as they are now. 

Someone like Blavatsky was (and remarkably: still is in a sense) so
much in the public light, that it is inevitable that people judge her.
She knew this herself well enough to let Annie Besant read the Hodson
report. Only after Besant had judged it to be trash was she accepted
as a student of Blavatsky's. Cushioning people isn't going to lead to
the truth. If we are going to select material based on the image we
want Blavatsky to have, then we aren't into the business of trying to
find truth, but in the business of advertising. Happily, despite the
beautiful books Quest publishing produces, the content has not been
sensored based on ideas on how it makes Blavatsky look. Her reputation
is mixed anyhow, one might as well read the material her mixed
reputation is based on. 

If I may add one more comment: it seems to me to be an absolute waste
of time, energy and money to reprint the Blavatsky Letters while
deleting a few of those letters. It is a good, well edited book which
meets the scientific standards and has good explanations and an
index/glossary. So it can be handed out to anybody seriously
interested in Blavatsky. Those that want to can warn prospective
readers about the Solovyov material. The whole fuss seems to me to be
totally out of proportion. 

Best wishes,
Katinka Hesselink, The Netherlands
 
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> The following two emails by Jerry Schueler were 
> recently posted to Theos-L. I have Jerry's permission 
> to post these again.