Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00764)

-Allahabad Theosophists.
The basic argument was that because these Brahmins still clung 
fiercely
to their gods and beliefs, it would be impossible for the Masters to
have any meaningful conversation with them and so would be a waste of
both of their time.  When this letter finally came to light, the
Brahmins understood it to be an edorsement of Buddhism over 
Brahmanism

This is very well understandable that the Masters could not.
Christina
















-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Christina,
> 
> From what I understand, Olcott's Mistake is as follows.
> 
> In ML-134 (Letter 30, chrono) HPB forwards a message to Sinnet 
from M. 
> In the letter, dated November 1881, HPB writes on behalf of M. why 
it is
> that the Masters will not correspond with the Allahabad 
Theosophists. 
> The basic argument was that because these Brahmins still clung 
fiercely
> to their gods and beliefs, it would be impossible for the Masters 
to
> have any meaningful conversation with them and so would be a waste 
of
> both of their time.  When this letter finally came to light, the
> Brahmins understood it to be an edorsement of Buddhism over 
Brahmanism. 
> They argued it could not be from the Masters.  This left Olcott in 
a
> difficult political position with respect to the Society in India, 
for
> he feared that if he lost the Brahmins' support, that could 
jeapordize
> the Society.  At this point, in 1895, he already had developed 
doubt
> concerning HPB's integrity.
> 
> Olcott wanted to disagree with the contents of the letter.  Rather 
than
> argue that what the letter said was wrong, he proceeded to 
undermine
> HPB's credibility by implying that she may have forged the 
letter.  This
> not only demonstrated his ingratitude for all that HPB had done, 
it was
> hypocritical on his part.  The President-founder had done what no 
other
> theosophist had ever done, he had argued his case by attacking the
> messenger.  From then on this made it okay for theosophists to 
obscure
> the message by attacking the messenger.  This was precisely what 
the
> Society had been established to prevent  (for as long as people 
stuck to
> arguing over the message, civility was guaranteed.)  To this day,
> theosophists continue to argue by attacking the messenger.  
Universal
> Brotherhood was supposed to guarantee that inuendo, slander, etc. 
was
> kept out of the debate.  Today people bring up inuendo and slander
> concerning HPB as if it were nothing, and why not?  Olcott, the
> President-founder did it!
> 
> As Carlos has pointed out, Olcott, according to Laura Holloway, 
came to
> regret his error.   In time, perhaps others will learn as well.
> 
> This in short is Olcott's Mistake.  I hope that I was able to 
convey it
> with some clarity.
> 
> Bruce
>