Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00603)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, samblo@... wrote:
>
> Bruce,
>     Thanks for your comments and citations. I thank you. I am not 
familiar 
> with the "Prayag Letter" you reference but it seems important to 
the forensic 
> trail of events, perhaps Krsanna will also include these critical 
elements in 
> her capable well endowed and trained efforts. I have high 
confidence in her 
> skills. 
>     I do remember Chakravarti being mentioned as having insinuates 
his 
> influence to someone, Besant?
>     I don't have Pelletier's Book. But in any case "clouded" 
or "obscured" 
> doesn't necessarily mean "ruined" to me, the Truth is exsumable. 
Why did Judge 
> reprint only part of the Prayag Letter and not the full letter? In 
the cursory 
> glimpse I had of the first page of the Google listings I read on 
one of them 
> that Besant issued a statement in April and Olcott posted the 
Postscript in the 
> Theosophist in June not April is that correct or not your content 
in this 
> post seems to counterdicte that, am I reading this right? Did 
Olcott post his 
> "Postscript" commentary in two successive issues of the 
Theosophist?
> 
> Where is the complete unchanged "Postscript" of Olcott found 
online if you 
> know?
> would you be kind enough to explain what is was and what the view 
of Basil 
> Crump was in this affair, I understand time is precious. Is it a 
purely 
> subjective belief that Olcott sided with the superstitions of the 
Brahmans or was it 
> the purely "Administrative Process" he as President was obligated 
to carry out 
> coupled with his heretical declaration that when Blavatsky laid 
aside her body 
> all communication with the Mahatma's has ceased to happen, and 
this was 
> resented by certain others?  I understand that the Brahmin wanted 
to maintain 
> stasis and continuity of their historical position, that is why I 
posed the earlier 
> question about Adyar post Blavatsky.
> 
> Many thanks for your willingness to post the sources you consider 
cogent in 
> the matter,
> 
> John
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>