Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00098)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@...> wrote:

> Are you really suggesting that Blavatsky is responsible for the 
> outrageous behaviour of Bishop Leadbeater and Dr Besant despite

> A lanoo is totally responsible for their actions are they not?

It seems that you haven't caught my point.
I consider it in a perspective that it is all fraud from beginning to 
the end. No lanoos, as there were no any lanoos in this story. The 
version that all theosophy beginnig from Blavatsky is fraud is much 
more plausible for outside inquirer than only some persons later 
became frauds, especially if they were known as honest people before 
their involvement into theosophy.
As for outrageous behaviour:

"One morning I was about to go. She said, "Do not go, I have some 
work for you." She gave me a lot of papers to copy, twelve sheets of 
foolscap. I copied it and gave it to her. She looked at it, crumpled 
it and threw it into the waste-basket. She was in a rage." 
http://blavatskyarchives.com/chetty1931.htm

Isn't this behaviour outrageous? The only guilt of poor Subbia was 
that he wrote on both sides of paper instead of one!