[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Did the TS fail because of HPB and a Mahatma-Craze?

Dec 04, 2009 01:56 PM
by Morten Nymann Olesen

Dear friends

My views are:

I just received the following link in an e-mail:

Madame Blavatsky: Spiritual Traveller (6 videos)

I dear say that those videos are not quite correct in thier formulations.

- - -
One issue has to do with the problem which can be called the Mahatma-craze.
Did the TS fail because of HPB and a Mahatma-Craze?

M. Sufilight says:

H. P. blavatsky clear rejected its importance by saying the following in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, p. 294-297:

"ENQUIRER. But if the Masters exist, why don't they come out before all men and refute once for all the many charges which are made against Mdme. Blavatsky and the Society?

THEOSOPHIST. What charges?

ENQUIRER. That they do not exist, and that she has invented them. That they are men of straw, "Mahatmas of muslin and bladders." Does not all this injure her reputation?

THEOSOPHIST. In what way can such an accusation injure her in reality? Did she ever make money on their presumed existence, or derive benefit, or fame, therefrom? I answer that she has gained only insults, abuse, and calumnies, which would have been very painful had she not learned long ago to remain perfectly indifferent to such false charges. For what does it amount to, after all? Why, to an implied compliment, which, if the fools, her accusers, were not carried away by their blind hatred, they would have thought twice before uttering. To say that she has invented the Masters comes to this: She must have invented every bit of philosophy that has ever been given out in Theosophical literature. She must be the author of the letters from which "Esoteric Buddhism" was written; the sole inventor of every tenet found in the "Secret Doctrine," which, if the world were just, would be recognised as supplying many of the missing links of science, as will be discovered a hundred years hence. By saying what they do, they are also giving her the credit of being far cleverer than the hundreds of men, (many very clever and not a few scientific men,) who believe in what she saysâinasmuch as she must have fooled them all! If they speak the truth, then she must be several Mahatmas rolled into one like a nest of Chinese boxes; since among the so-called "Mahatma letters" are many in totally different and distinct styles, all of which her accusers declare that she has written.

ENQUIRER. It is just what they say. But is it not very painful to her to be publicly denounced as "the most accomplished impostor of the age, whose name deserves to pass to posterity," as is done in the Report of the "Society for Psychical Research"?

THEOSOPHIST. It might be painful if it were true, or came from people less rabidly materialistic and prejudiced. As it is, personally she treats the whole matter with contempt, while the Mahatmas simply laugh at it. In truth, it is the greatest compliment that could be paid to her. I say so, again.

ENQUIRER. But her enemies claim to have proved their case.

THEOSOPHIST. Aye, it is easy enough to make such a claim when you have constituted yourself judge, jury, and prosecuting counsel at once, as they did. But who, except their direct followers and our enemies, believe in it?

ENQUIRER. But they sent a representative to India to investigate the matter, didn't they?

THEOSOPHIST. They did, and their final conclusion rests entirely on the unchecked statements and unverified assertions of this young gentleman. A lawyer who read through his report told a friend of mine that in all his experience he had never seen "such a ridiculous and self-condemnatory document." It was found to be full of suppositions and "working hypotheses" which mutually destroyed each other. Is this a serious charge?

ENQUIRER. Yet it has done the Society great harm. Why, then, did she not vindicate her own character, at least, before a Court of Law?

THEOSOPHIST. Firstly, because as a Theosophist, it is her duty to leave unheeded all personal insults. Secondly, because neither the Society nor Mdme. Blavatsky had any money to waste over such a law-suit. And lastly, because it would have been ridiculous for both to be untrue to their principles, because of an attack made on them by a flock of stupid old British wethers, who had been led to butt at them by an over frolicksome lambkin from Australia.

ENQUIRER. This is complimentary. But do you not think that it would have done real good to the cause of Theosophy, if she had authoritatively disproved the whole thing once for all?

THEOSOPHIST. Perhaps. But do you believe that any English jury or judge would have ever admitted the reality of psychic phenomena, even if entirely unprejudiced beforehand? And when you remember that they would have been set against us already by the "Russian Spy" scare, the charge of Atheism and infidelity, and all the other calumnies that have been circulated against us, you cannot fail to see that such an attempt to obtain justice in a Court of Law would have been worse than fruitless! All this the Psychic Researchers knew well, and they took a base and mean advantage of their position to raise themselves above our heads and save themselves at our expense. "

So all this about Blavatsky being an imposter and making a mistake might not be true when dealing with this particular issue.

- - -
One mistake she did according to letter no. 54 from Mahatma KH was:

"And now, do you want to know how far she is guilty? Know then, that if she ever became guilty of real, deliberate deception, owing to that "zeal," it was when in the presence of phenomena produced, she kept constantly denying -- except in the matter of such trifles as bells and raps -- that she had anything to do with their production personally. From your "European standpoint" it is downright deception, a big thundering lie; from our Asiatic standpoint, though an imprudent, blamable zeal, an untruthful exaggeration, or what a Yankee would call "a blazing cock-a-hoop" meant for the benefit of the "Brothers," -- Yet withal, if we look into the motive -- a sublime, self-denying, noble and meritorious -- not dishonest -- zeal. Yes; in that, and in that alone, she became constantly guilty of deceiving her friends. She could never be made to realize the utter uselessness, the danger of such a zeal; and how mistaken she was in her notions that she was adding to our glory, whereas, by attributing to us very often phenomena of the most childish nature, she but lowered us in the public estimation and sanctioned the claim of her enemies that she was "but a medium"! But it was of no use. In accordance with our rules, M. was not permitted to forbid her such a course, in so many words. She had to be allowed full and entire freedom of action, the liberty of creating causes that became in due course of time her scourge, her public pillory. He could at best forbid her producing phenomena, and to this last extremity he resorted as often as he could, to her friends and theosophists great dissatisfaction. Was, or rather is, it lack of intellectual perceptions in her? Certainly not. It is a psychological disease, over which she has little if any control at all. Her impulsive nature -- as you have correctly inferred in your reply -- is always ready to carry her beyond the boundaries of truth, into the regions of exaggeration; nevertheless without a shadow of suspicion that she is thereby deceiving her friends, or abusing of their great trust in her. The stereotyped phrase: "It is not I; I can do nothing by myself. . . it is all they -- the Brothers. . . . I am but their humble and devoted slave and instrument" is a downright fib. She can and did produce phenomena, owing to her natural powers combined with several long years of regular training and her phenomena are sometimes better, more wonderful and far more perfect than those of some high, initiated chelas, whom she surpasses in artistic taste and purely Western appreciation of art -- as for instance in the instantaneous production of pictures: witness -- her portrait of the "fakir" Tiravalla mentioned in Hints, and compared with my portrait by Gjual Khool. Notwithstanding all the superiority of his powers, as compared to hers; his youth as contrasted with her old age; and the undeniable and important advantage he possesses of having never brought his pure unalloyed magnetism in direct contact with the great impurity of your world and society -- yet do what he may, he will never be able to produce such a picture, simply because he is unable to conceive it in his mind and Tibetan thought. "

Some inaccuracies are mentioned in Letter no. 5 as well.

Errare Humanum Est.

Yet I dear ask those who are behind the above very scholary videos...
But why in heavens name - crucify - her so much because of her doing something as trivial as that mentioned by the named master KH?

- - -
Some of us are aware of and know and do not only believe that the Masters whether male or female or not are truely real.

Any comments?

M. Sufilight

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

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application