Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01215)

"A modern Priestess of Isis".  This book was published in Russian by V.S.Solovyoff, after the death of H.P.B; therefore her sister, Mme Vera Jelihovsky took up the cudgels on her behalf and replied in a pamphlet called H.P.Blavatsky and a Modern Priest of Truth.  She INCLUDED in this pamphlet Solovyoff's letters to H.P.B. which letters show him to be, not a "cool headed" critic engaged on scientific enquiry," but an ardent seeker and disciple eager for instruction and aid.  Her argument is that Mr Solovyoff has no right to write abvout Mme Blavatsky at all, for he knew very little of her.  His whole acquaintance with her covered only six weeks in Paris, as much at Wurzburg, and a few days at Elberfled.  Further, his ignorance of English made him incapable of studying her theosophical writings, the whole of which were, with the exception of Isis Unveiled, at that time untranslated.

Has anyone else read "personal memoirs of H.P.Blavatsky , compiled by Mary K Neff?

Cass

danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com> wrote:                                  Carlos,
 
 You write:
 
 ===============================================================
 I would like to have a clear explanation, from you, on why 
 publicizing things you know are false, and which attack the Masters 
 and HPB...."
 ===============================================================
 
 I have written on NUMEROUS occasions my clear explanation.  
 
 Have you read and tried to understand what I have written on this 
 subject?  I wonder.
 
 But I give BELOW 2 excerpts from my previous postings which explain 
 my rationale.
 
 I am not expecting you to understand, let alone agree with my view 
 and policy!!
 
 Furthermore, I could care less if you either understand or agree with 
 what I say.  But I post them for the record and for readers who are 
 possibly interested.
 
 So BELOW are the 2 excerpts
 
 Daniel
 http://hpb.cc
 
 FIRST EXCERPT:
 
 ===============================================================
 ...In regards to Aveline's comments about the adding of
 negative accounts by Coulomb and Hodgson, etc. to the
 TPH Wheaton edition of my book THE ESOTERIC WORLD OF
 MADAME BLAVATSKY, it was MY decision and only MY
 decision [not TPH Wheaton] to add them so that readers
 could see what the charges against HPB actually were,
 ESPECIALLY since many of the other accounts by
 "friendly" witnesses refer to these charges, and even
 make comments about the charges, etc.
 
 I saw no good reason to hide the "negative" accounts
 from readers....One might conclude from his various
 comments that Mr. Aveline doesn't want readers to read
 these accounts for themselves and come to their own
 conclusions.
 
 Also by giving these accounts in my book, the reader
 can start to UNDERSTAND the RELEVANCE of what the
 other witnesses say in their accounts.
 
 Furthermore, I was motivated to include them in light
 of what Madame Blavatsky once wrote:
 
 "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things
 at their right value; and unless a judge compares
 notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a
 correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist,
 July, 1881, p. 218.
 
 I wanted the reader to be able to compare notes and
 hear both sides. What is wrong with that? Doesn't Mr.
 Aveline want readers to do their own comparing of
 notes, etc.?
 
 And CONTRARY to what Mr. Aveline writes, some of the
 editorial notes in my book do call the reader's
 attention to the conflicting testimony and even to the
 falsity of the charges against HPB....
 
 Furthermore, I specifically selected the material by
 Coulomb and Hodgson to put in JUXTAPOSITION with other
 accounts which show that what they (Coulomb and
 Hodgson) say about, for example, the appearances of
 the Masters, must surely be off the mark, to say the
 least or as I believe.....wrong...false.
 
 If anything, the accounts by the above "enemies" of
 HPB found next to other accounts will make the reader
 .... THINK .... about the charges and their validity.
 And if they are perceptive at all, they should (at the
 very least) conclude that the Coulomb/Hodgson charges
 should not be taken at face value WITHOUT carefully
 considering other material which is also found in the
 book or what can be found in greater detail in the
 Waterman and Harrison books.
 
 Some of the thoughtful readers of my book may actually
 dig deeper and try to determine for themselves what
 really happened....instead of believing either Aveline
 or me!!...
 ==================================================
 
 SECOND EXCERPT:
 
 ================================================================
 ...I just wanted to make the book "better"....by adding more RARE
 material that I had discovered since the first edition was
 published...material about the Masters, etc. ... and yes I wanted
 to add more "negative" material...
 
 First of all, a number of readers had written me after reading the
 first edition, wanting to know more about the Hodgson/Coulomb
 charges...What did Coulomb and Hodgson say? also I thought it was
 a good idea to give some details in Coulomb's and Hodgson's own
 words especially about the appearances of the Masters so readers
 could read all that and ALSO read what the other witnesses said
 about how the Masters appeared. Call it COMPARE AND CONTRAST.
 
 I guess I was foolish enough to believe that readers would actually
 appreciate having access to some of what Coulomb and Hodgson said!
 But I guess I didn't understand the psychology of the "true
 believer"! Who knows!!
 
 The Coulomb and Hodgson testimony appears downright silly (at least
 to me!) when you compare their explanations with those testimonies
 of the witnesses who were privileged to see the Masters...all of
 that is in my Quest book edition.....Some perceptive readers may
 have picked up on that....So why hide the Coulomb/Hodgson testimony
 from readers????
 
 And I don't know if I have ever explained this before, but when
 selecting material for both the original edition as well as the
 Quest book edition of my book I purposely selected material for
 inclusion that filled in the gaps in the one sided presentation of
 both the Meade and Johnson books on HPB and the Masters. I can show
 you testimony after testimony that I added for the very reason that
 Meade and Johnson downplayed or simply omitted this relevant
 testimony....
 
 And as far as the issue of including more negative accounts of
 Madame Blavatsky in my book, I am even more convinced that such
 material should be included. People have a right to have access to
 this material. I wanted to read this material as I tried to
 understand Madame Blavatsky in earlier years of my own quest. So why
 should I hide it from readers?
 
 If readers are somehow confused or thrown off by this material, then
 so be it. Maybe they should simply return to some simple new age
 belief or return to whatever ism or ology they used to believe in.
 
 Many years ago I left several orthodox faiths for the very reason
 that these isms encourage one not to ask questions, not to look at
 the opposing view, etc. etc.
 ==============================================================
 
 
     
                       

 
---------------------------------
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

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