Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00354)

Yes I agree with everything (or almost everything you write!).

I was not trying to do a definitive analysis but simply
wanted to roughly indicate what this comparing and contrasting
could be.

I will just comment on just one thing you write since I don't have 
the time right now to do more:

"There is surely more than one way to fake the appearance of a 
master."

Yes surely I agree but hopefully you are not automatically saying 
that all appearances were therefore faked.  Are we open to the 
possibility that the appearances were actually genuine? etc. etc.

Thanks for your comments.

Daniel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@...> 
wrote:
>
> Daniel,  In the first testimony  Coulomb does not say that the 
master 
> reported to have been seen by Olcott in the second testimony was 
either 
> Monseiur Coulomb in disguise or the sewn and stuffed head. You 
appear to 
> be  comparing and contrasting apples and oranges, so to speak.  
Your 
> analysis has relevance in that both testimonies are about the 
> "appearance" of a master, however it lacks decisive significance 
in that 
> each testimony is about a different "appearance" at a different 
time, in 
> a different place, and witnessed by different people. 
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>