Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00559)

Friends, 

The letter below was published in FOHAT, Summer 2006, pp. 29 and 45.

Regards, Carlos. 



 
Dear Editor, 
 
Seeing that “Fohat” magazine consistenly defends H.P. Blavatsky’s  honour as an honest and decent woman, Ms. Katinka Hesselink, from The Netherlands, felt she had to interfere -- and wrote a letter to the Editor.(1)  
 
Ms. Katinka probably calls herself a Theosophist, and certainly is a member of the Adyar Society, besides being, it seems, a follower of Paul Johnson’s  ideas.  
 
For Ms. Katinka, “the  real Blavatsky” is that imaginary and fraudulent  person which was entirely invented by Blavatsky’s libelers. Katinka wrote: 
 
“It is from the work of people like [Daniel] Caldwell and [John] Algeo that the real Blavatsky can perhaps be seen.  Blavatsky DID perform phenomena.  She also probably faked a few.”
 
Who says so? 
 
Katinka is implicitly quoting Solovyof and the Coulombs, without having the nerve, though, to quote them openly, as they are universally  recognized as mere liars.  
 
This absence of evidence against HPB’s innocence is one of the reasons  why Paul Johnson, John Algeo and other libelers as Katinka herself  rather “suggest” that  HPB was a fraud, instead of clearly stating it. These persons can use only gossips and innuendos, for which there is no need  of  evidence. 
 
Katinka writes that “Blavatsky was no saint and never claimed to be one”.  What does Katinka mean by the widely Roman catholic term “saint”? Is it an irony?  
 
Blavatsky was not a ADEPT and never claimed to be one. Blavatsky was not beyond making mistakes and never claimed to be so.  But by saying that HPB was “not perfect” Katinka means she was “not honest”. 
 
Well, no one can be an aspirant to lay discipleship if one is not as honest to himself and to others as he can.  The level of truthfulness has to steadily increase  if he will ever turn into a lay chela.  A REGULAR chela, on the other hand,  has to have an even higher level of truthfulness, which implies a good  deal of “viveka”, discernment.  
 
HPB was a regular chela and more. She also an Initiate,  that this, someone who is essentially truthful in everyone he or she does, and has a high degree of  viveka, vairagya and compassion. 
 
What Katinka is implying in her statements is that HPB was no disciple, or  that the whole idea of  discipleship is false.  Katinka’s viewpoint  is in fact Solovyof’s point of view. The only difference is that this time it is being defended inside the theosophical movement and by the tactics of innuendos and “maybes”. 
 
Katinka is projecting over HPB, as Paul Johnson and John Algeo do, the entire falsehood of discipleship  as it is described by C. W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant.  These people are trying to build an alternative image of HPB as an extension (in psychoanalytical terms,  a “projection”) of  Mr. Leadbeater’s ideas, which they have consciously and unconsciously absorbed and adopted as their own. (Leadbeater’s description of discipleship is entirely different from the one we see in the Mahatma Letters and in HPB’s writings -- and utterly based in his own false clairvoyance.)
 
Naturally, Ms. Katinka did not have the courage defend in her letter to “FOHAT” the accuracy of the sources according to which HPB “faked phenomena”.  
 
Katinka presents herself as a modern and rational mind, yet she can’t do the most basic task of any real researcher: to examine the accuracy of his or her sources of information.  She naturally has strong reasons not to do that! 
 
The motto of the Adyar Society is,  even today, “There Is No Religion Higher Than Truth”.  
 
If those Adyar members who defend the idea that the founder of  the Society  faked phenomena had any self-esteem and self-respect, they would abandon such a Society.  
 
If they think a Society for Truth was created by a fraudulent woman, what are  they doing there?  I wonder why  they call themselves “theosophists”.  
 
Best regards,   Carlos Cardoso Aveline, from Brazil. 
 
 
 
NOTE: 
 
(1) “FOHAT” magazine, Vol. IX,  Number 4,  Winter 2005, p. 77. 
 
 
O o o O o o O  o o O o o O  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]