Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00103)

Jake,

You write in your latest posting at:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/36317>
the following:

=============================================
In dan's communication below of 10-3-06,
he says that Blavatsky in Key to Theosophy
(pp. 38, 51 orig ed.) is quoting or
refering to ver Planck's article in
Judge's "The Path," and thus supporting
his imaginary teacher letter (quoted in
ES Instruction, No. 5). By what he quotes
from the path, however, - IT DOES NOT
SUPPORT THE LETTER AT ALL, and there is
nothing similar between his two examples.
What's the deal here? His quoted evidence
has nothing to do with the point at hand
at all!! Maybe its thought that everyone
is too stupid or uncaring to notice. (There's
no reference to any "Pledge" in his Path quote.)
============================================

What is THE "point at hand"???

Yes, that is THE question!

Jake, as far as I can tell, you seem to misunderstand
what I was trying to say in my postings at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/36218

and at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/36241

I will concede up front that maybe I am misunderstanding
what you are contending here but let me simply go back to my two 
postings and see what my point actually was.

MY "point at hand" was summed up in the title of my one post:

Was HP Blavatsky Aware of this Specific KH Letter???

This question of mine was prompted by your earlier comment which 
read:

"Well, She [H.P. Blavatsky] couldn't keep track of Everything."

So I asked in the title of my posting:

Was HP Blavatsky Aware of this Specific KH Letter???

And I wrote:

Was I suggesting that HPB had to keep track of EVERYTHING?

...If anything, the SPECIFIC question to answer would be:

Was H.P. Blavatsky reading THE PATH magazine?

During 1889 and 1890, there are at least four PATH articles in which
Julia quotes from the specific KH letter under discussion.

Did H.P. Blavatsky read any of these articles?

I suggest that if HPB read even one of the articles, she would have
become aware that Julia had excerpts from this unpublished
Mahatma letter/manuscript that Jake thinks is phoney?

Then in my posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/36241

I wrote:

....In general, it is not a stretch to suppose that Madame Blavatsky
read each and every issue of THE PATH as it was published. We know
that HPB had a high regard for this magazine and in fact THE PATH
was one of the three main Theosophical periodicals of the time, the
other two being HPB's LUCIFER and Adyar's THE THEOSOPHIST.

But yesterday as I was researching this KH Concentration letter I
discovered evidence that shows that indeed HPB read this issue of
THE PATH and IN FACT read Julia's lead article....

Turn to the original edition of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, page 38 and
one finds...[I give the KEY quote here]....

HPB is in fact quoting from Julia's [July 1889] article!

...And the following I just discovered like 3 minutes ago:

On page 51 of THE KEY, Madame Blavatsky again writes...[another 
quote from the KEY given here]...

Again HPB is here quoting from Julia's own words from her article
titled: "Judge the Act: Not the Person: Adepts and Mediums."

....Obviously, HPB was aware of Julia' stirring defense of her in 
this article and no doubt was also aware that in this same article 
Julia gives TWO quotes from the private letters of the said 
Adept/Master.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, the above is the gist of my argument, my point 
at hand.

So Jake, when you then bring up:

"IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE LETTER AT ALL"

you are bringing up ANOTHER POINT....

This other point may be valid but it was not what I was discussing 
in my two postings.

So Jake when you then write:

"What's the deal here? His quoted evidence has nothing to do with 
the point at hand at all!! Maybe its thought that everyone
is too stupid or uncaring to notice."

you are as far as I can see CREATING your own point....fine and good 
but you are saying this point you have created was my point...!

Maybe Ken Small will be brave enough to comment on what I have just 
written!!  :)

Daniel
http://hpb.cc