Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00349)

As I understand them, both of the  testimonies you present below could 
be true.  Both could be false.  One could be true and the other false.  
They do not address the same encounter of a master and therefore a 
contrast and comparison of the details is limited to generalities at 
best.  None of the details of one testimony precludes the details of  
the other testimony from being true at a different time, place, and 
audience.  Nor do any of the details from one testimony preclude the 
details of the other testimony from being false at a different time, 
place, and audience.  There is surely more than one way to fake the 
appearance of a master.


peace within,


bill



danielhcaldwell wrote:
> Let us continue with another simple comparing and contrasting.
>
> First, I give below Emma Coulomb's basic explanation for the
> appearances of the Masters:
>
> =======================================================
> Later] in one of [her good] moods [Madame Blavatsky] called me up 
> and told me:   "See if you can make a head of human size and place 
> it on that divan," pointing to a sofa in her room, " and merely put 
> a sheet round it; it would have a magic effect by moonlight."  What 
> can this mean?  I wondered.  But knowing how disagreeable she could 
> make herself if she was stroked on the wrong side, I complied with 
> her wish.  She cut a paper pattern of the face I was to make, which 
> I still have; on this I cut the precious lineaments of the beloved 
> Master, but, to my shame, I must say that, after all my trouble of 
> cutting, sewing, and stuffing, Madame said that it looked like an 
> old Jew---I suppose she meant Shylock.  Madame, with a graceful 
> touch  here and there of her painting brush, gave it a little better 
> appearance.   But this was only a head, without bust, and could not 
> very well be used, so I made a jacket, which I doubled, and between 
> the two cloths I placed stuffing, to form the shoulders and chest; 
> the arms were only to the elbow, because, when the thing was tried 
> on, we found the long arm would be in the way of him who had to 
> carry it.  This beauty finished, made Madame quite another person.   
> Let us see for what purpose the doll was made.  This was to give a 
> convincing and material proof of the existence of the brothers [the 
> Mahatmas], as their (said) invisible presence did not fully satisfy 
> the truthseekers. 
> Among the many apparitions to which this doll has been instrumental, 
> I will choose one seen by Mr. Ramaswamier, in December, 1881.  The 
> Mahatma he saw in his astral body on the balcony at the head-
> quarters of the Theosophical Society in Bombay, on the memorable 
> night of December, 1881, was no one else than Monsieur Coulomb, with 
> the doll's head on his own. 
> The doll plays the greatest part in these apparitions, and, as I 
> have already explained, it is carried on somebody's head; but at 
> times it is placed on the top of a long bamboo, and raised to show 
> that it is an astral body; but when the doll has not been at hand, 
> even a white cloth wrapped round the person who was to perform the 
> Mahatma was at times used, and answered the purpose. 
> ========================================================
>
> Now from Hodgson's account, he writes also about this "dummie" head:
>
> ==================================================
> I was left without any doubt that the appearances [of the Mahatmas] 
> might have been well produced by [Monsieur] Coulomb in disguise.  I 
> have seen [Monsieur] Coulomb disguised as a Mahatma, and can 
> understand that the figure may have been very impressive.   A dummy 
> head (with shoulders), like that of a Hindu, with beard, &c. and 
> fehta [turban], is worn on the top of the head of the person 
> disguised.   A long flowing muslin garment falls down in front, and 
> by holding the folds very slightly apart, the wearer is enabled to 
> see, and to speak also, if necessary.  I do not think it in the 
> least degree likely that any of the witnesses would have penetrated 
> this disguise had the figure been even much nearer than it was, and 
> the light much better. 
> I cannot regard Colonel Olcott's testimony as of any scientific 
> value.  In particular, his testimony to the alleged "astral" 
> appearance [of the Mahatma Morya] in New York proves, in my opinion, 
> no more than that he saw someone in his room, who may have been an 
> ordinary Hindu, or some other person, disguised, as a Mahatma for 
> the purpose, and acting for Madame Blavatsky.  And the same may be 
> said of all his testimony to apparitions of Mahatmas. 
> I need not here say much on the other alleged appearances of 
> Mahatmas, in either their ordinary physical or their "astral" 
> bodies.  A confederate in disguise is generally an easy and 
> sufficient explanation of them. 
> ===========================================================
>
> Now contrast and compare his explanations with Colonel Olcott's
> testimony some of which can be found at:
>
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/olcottandmahatmas.htm
>
> And to be more specific, see this account by Olcott:
>
> =========================================================
> ....On the evening of 4th August [1880], a Mahatma [Master Morya] 
> visited HPB, and I was called in to see him before he left. He 
> dictated a long and important letter to an influential friend of 
> ours at Paris, and gave me important hints about the management of 
> current [Theosophical] Society affairs. 
> I was sent away before his visit terminated, and as I left him 
> sitting in HPB's room, I cannot say whether his departure was a 
> phenomenal disappearance or not....
> ===========================================================
>
> Now are we to suppose that this Mahatma was Mon. Coulomb with
> dummmie on head?
>
> Remember Hodgson said:
>
> ===============================================================
> A long flowing muslin garment falls down in front, and by holding 
> the folds very slightly apart, the wearer is enabled to see, and to 
> speak also, if necessary.  I do not think it in the least degree 
> likely that any of the witnesses would have penetrated this disguise 
> had the figure been even much nearer than it was, and the light much 
> better. 
> ================================================================
>
> Remember the dummie had fake eyes, the mouth would not move when the
> "dummie" talked.....etc. etc.
>
> Would Olcott see the obvious especially when he was in the same
> room carrying on a conversation with the Mahatma?
>
> Many other observations and points could be made simply by
> contrasting and comparing Coulomb's and Hodgson's account with 
> Olcott's firsthand testimony not to mention the testimony of other 
> witnesses.
>
> etc. etc.
>
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>