Theos-Talk Archives (December 2009 Message tt00019)

where can one find the names of the people shown in the picture in video 4 at 4:18

and what is this letter that Hodson showed Olcott video 5 at 3:16 written by HPB that so devastated him he felt like committing suicide? I have never read of such a letter, does anyone know of it and if it is on the Blavatsky archive site?

-RAB
--- On Fri, 12/4/09, Drpsionic@aol.com <Drpsionic@aol.com> wrote:

From: Drpsionic@aol.com <Drpsionic@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Did the TS fail because of HPB and a Mahatma-Craze?
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 5:52 PM







Â



  


    
      
      
      The TS did not fail, not by a long shot.  It simply became a victim of  its 

own success.

 

Chuck the heretic

 

_www.charlescosiman o.com  



In a message dated 12/4/2009 4:15:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,  

c.leest@yahoo. com writes:



This video's are also to be seen on you tube, just for a long time.

I  have put them on my page in www.theosophy. I  



--- In 



_ (http://www.charlesc osimano.com/) _theos-talk@ yahoogrotheos- t_ 

(mailto:theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com) _, "Morten Nymann Olesen"  <global-theosophy@ glo> 

wrote:

>

> Dear friends

>  

> My views are:

> 

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

> 

> Madame Blavatsky: Spiritual Traveller (6  videos)

> _ (http://www.charlesc osimano.com/) 

_http://www.conspira http://wwwhttp: //wwhttp: //_ (http://www.conspira cyarchive. com/Blog/ ?p=3213) 

> 

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

> 

> - -  -

> 1.

> 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 saysÃââinasmuch  

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 hea_ds and save themselves at our expense. "

>  _ (http://www.charlesc osimano.com/) 

_http://www.phx- http://wwwhttp: //wwhtt_ (http://www.phx- ult-lodge. org/aKEY. htm) 

> 

> 

> So all this  about Blavatsky being an imposter and making a mistake might 

not be true when  dealing with this particular issue.

> 

> - - -

> 2.

>  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. "

> _ (http://www.charlesc osimano.com/) 

_http://www.theosoci http://www. theoshttp: //wwhttp: //ww_ (http://www.theosoci ety.org/pasadena /mahatma/ ml-54.htm) _

> 

> 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]

>



_ (http://www.charlesc osimano.com/) 



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





    
     

    
    


 



  






      

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