Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00052)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> > Compare T. Subba Row's and C. W. Leadbeater's explanation with Master 
> > Koot Hoomi's explanation 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > I invite interested readers to compare the
> > T. Subba Row/Leadbeater explanation about Madame Blavatsky
> > with what Master Koot Hoomi wrote to Colonel Olcott
> > about Madame Blavatsky.
> > 
> > In a letter dated June 14th, 1885 from Adyar, Madras,
> > India, Charles Leadbeater wrote:
> > 
> > "Subba Row related to us recently more concerning
> > Madame's remarkable complex character than I, at
> > least, had previously known; and it shows us plainly
> > how foolish it would be to blame her for what in
> > anyone else would be called a want of common moral
> > qualities. We were right in believing that the
> > original H. P. Blavatsky, who was by nature clairvoyant
> > and who had some knowledge of occultism, disappeared
> > from earth life some twenty years ago, and that a
> > certain Adept, who in some way had failed to reach
> > his goal, voluntarily took possession of her body,
> > or was placed there --- partly as a punishment, in
> > order to do all in his power to promulgate the truth
> > through her. We likewise understood rightly that when
> > engaged on other business he was frequently absent
> > from this body. But now I come to a point about which
> > I was completely in error. I thought that during the absence of the
> > Adept, the body was in a state similar to that of Margrave in Bulwer
> > Lytton's "Strange Story," only animated by its original lower
> > constituents. But it seems this was not the case. At her death, all
> > the usual constituents of the body left it as with that of others,
> > and the present inhabitant had to supply the whole want from his own
> > organisation. For this purpose two Chelas, but little versed in
> > occultism, were selected to take the Adept's place when
> > necessary; and as no Adept or Chela can enter into a woman's body
> > during times of illness, at such times it had to be taken possession
> > of by a terrible ill-tempered, ignorant old Tibet woman, in place of
> > the Adept or Chelas, as she was the only female available for this
> > purpose. It seems that when either of the four replaced one of the
> > others, he or she had no idea of what had been said or done by the
> > predecessor, and thus endless confusion occurred. This explains the
> > fact that Madame so often contradicts what she had said a few hours
> > previously, which fact naturally greatly excited Hodgson's
> > suspicions. It likewise accounts for the fact that sometimes she
> > seems to know less about occultism than we ourselves do, while at
> > others she speaks with the power and authority of a Rishi. For
> > months together, in consequence of her various illnesses, the
> > terrible old woman alone has inhabited her almost all the time, and
> > all around her have suffered from her ill-temper. Still the Adept
> > maintains his connection, in the hope, as we think, to be able to
> > complete his promulgation of the "secret doctrine" through her.
> > Whether this poor diseased body will hold together long enough for
> > this purpose no one at present can predict. Of course this true
> > explanation is useless for outsiders. But I think I can give even to
> > them a satisfactory explanation of Madame's contradictions
> > without attributing intentional untruth to her, when I inform them
> > that, as a Russian, she was prone to exaggeration, coupled with an
> > unretentive memory and an excitable style of speaking; and
> > especially when we consider that English is not her mother tongue
> > ... and therefore she often makes mistakes. Poor old lady! her life
> > has truly been a wonderful one, and who can say what will still come
> > of it!'
> 

In order to enable easier understanding of the letter, I am writing
some points written by Mr. Leadbeater.

1) CWL wrote "We were right in believing that the original H. P.
Blavatsky, who was by nature clairvoyant and who had some knowledge of
occultism, disappeared from earth life some twenty years ago". 

It means real HPB as a soul left that body around 1865 and that means
whatever Theosophical writing and work are attributed to HPB are not
done by true HPB.

2) CWL wrote "original H. P. Blavatsky, who was by nature clairvoyant
and who had some knowledge of occultism" 

These words don't consider HPB highly evolved and expert in occultism.
As this true HPB had left her body in 1865, members of TS are not
really much concerned about this true HPB.

3) CWL wrote "as no Adept or Chela can enter into a woman's body
during times of illness, at such times it had to be taken possession
of by a terrible ill-tempered, ignorant old Tibet woman, in place of
the Adept or Chelas"

This means what people know as HPB was actually this "terrible
ill-tempered, ignorant old Tibet woman" occupying body of true HPB
that passed away in 1865.

4) CWL wrote "For this purpose two Chelas, but little versed in
occultism, were selected to take the Adept's place" 

These words show that even these two chelas, who tried to work through
HPB's body, were not expert in occultism.

5) CWL wrote "For months together, in consequence of her various
illnesses, the terrible old woman alone has inhabited her almost all
the time, and all around her have suffered from her ill-temper."

It means it was for very short time that that Adept and two chelas
could occupy and work through HPB's body. Most of the time the soul
that worked through HPB's body was this "terrible ill-tempered,
ignorant old Tibet woman"


Best
Anand Gholap