Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00115)

Bruce,

Well, the attacks against Blavatsky by Coulomb and Hodgson were on 
the record books in 1893.

And these attacks had NOT been adequately answered and addressed
up to 1893.  It would be many, many years before most of them would 
even begin to be adequately addressed.  I realize that Sinnett and 
Besant had tried to address some of the attacks.  But their 
criticisms were quite limited and left far too many questions, etc. 
unanswered.

You say:

"The attacks against HPB were weak attacks coming from outside the 
Society. No one took them seriously."

No one took them seriously??????  No one??? 

Well, whether weak or not (and that is also debateable!!) these 
Coulomb, Hodgson and Soloyoff attacks from outside the Society were 
there and continued to plague the Theosophical Movement.  These were 
the MAJOR attacks that innumerable writers would cite as reasons 
against taking seriously the claims and teachings of Madame Blavatsky.

I would simply say that when you write that the attacks were "weak" 
and no one took them seriously you might ask yourself if 
these judgments you make are somewhat "subjective" on your part.

In talking and corresponding with Carrithers, Harrison and other 
defenders of Madame Blavatsky, I never hear such an assessment from 
them.  The assessments in fact were quite different.

But maybe I don't understand the "big picture" as you say --- so why 
don't you inform us with some cogent reasoning accompanied by some 
details.

Also maybe you are trying to see too much in the Besant/Olcott 
connection???

Carrithers, Hastings, Vania and Harrison pay no attention whatever to 
the Besant/Olcott items that you cite.  Why???

Daniel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "R. Bruce MacDonald" 
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel,
> 
> For an historian of theosophy, sometimes you are not very good with 
the 
> big picture.
> 
> To remind you, in 1893 when Judge wrote this passage, The 
Theosophical 
> Society was, from outward appearances, an harmonious group working 
in a 
> "noble and altruistic spirit."  Besant had not yet made her 
spurious 
> charges against Judge and Olcott had not come out with his 1895 
attack 
> on the good name of Madame Blavatsky.  The attacks against HPB were 
weak 
> attacks coming from outside the Society.  No one took them 
seriously.  
> If Olcott and Besant had not made their blunderous moves and things 
had 
> remained steady, today we would not even remember the names of 
Coulomb 
> or Solovyoff, and Hastings, Carrithers and the rest would never 
have had 
> to spend countless hours fending off attacks from lunatics within 
the 
> Society.
> 
> Judge knew exactly what he was saying because he understood history 
and 
> he understood human behavior!  Sadly, that wisdom appears to have 
been 
> lost in the intervening years.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> "I believe Judge had a good sense of
> things when he wrote..."?????
> 
> Bruce, you wrote:
> 
> ==========================================================
> I believe Judge had a good sense of things when he wrote:
> 
> "In the years that are gone, necessity existed for repelling mean
> personal attacks on H. P. Blavatsky's character. To take up arms in
> her behalf was wise. Now her works remain. The necessity for 
constant
> repulse of attacks on her does not exist. Judgment can be used in
> doing so. Loyalty is not thrown to the winds when good judgment says
> there is no need to reply. One of the best replies is to carry on 
the
> work in the noble and altruistic spirit she always pointed 
out . . ."
> - Williaim Quan Judge, Lucifer, Vol. XIII, December,
> 1893, p. 305. (Quoted in Theosophia #139)
> ========================================================
> 
> Bruce, I'm sorry but I don't agree that Judge "had a good sense of
> things" when he wrote what he did in LUCIFER.
> 
> AND THANK GOD THAT BEATRICE HASTINGS, K.F. VANIA, ADLAI WATERMAN
> (WALTER A. CARRITHERS, JR), VERNON HARRISON, etc. DID NOT FOLLOW
> JUDGE'S ADVISE. INSTEAD THEY PRODUCED IMPORTANT WORKS DEFENDING
> MADAME BLAVATSKY!!!!
> 
> Judge wrote:
> 
> "The necessity for constant repulse of attacks on her does not 
exist."
> 
> But if no one repulses the "attacks" what are new people, new
> inquirers to rely on???
> 
> Vague appeals to "work in the noble and altruistic spirit"??
> 
> Certainly such WORK needs to be done but ALSO reasonable and
> intelligent replies to "attacks" against Madame Blavatsky.
> 
> There are always new generations of inquirers and seekers who need 
to
> have access to material about these "attacks".
> 
> Some in each generation will ask the same questions again. There
> should be answers available.
> 
> Daniel
>