Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00099)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Konstantin Zaitzev" 
<kay_ziatz@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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!

Dear Konstatin
I'm not sure where we can go with this discussion. It appears we are 
on completely different pages.
Thank you for your comments.
Best wishes
Nigel