Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00199)

Interesting....

A few additional views might be helpful.

I caught this...about Russia versus Dorgiev...

Mahatma Letter 4 - 1880:
"More and more a dead formalism is gaining ground, and I am truly happy to find so unexpected an ally in a quarter where, hitherto there have not been too many â among the highly educated classes of English Society. A crisis, in a certain sense, is upon us now, and must be met. I might say two crises â one, the Society's, the other for Tibet. For, I may tell you in confidence, that Russia is gradually massing her forces for a future invasion of that country under the pretext of a Chinese War. If she does not succeed it will be due to us; and herein, at least we will deserve your gratitude. You see then, that we have weightier matters than small societies to think about; yet, the T.S. must not be neglected. The affair has taken an impulse, which, if not well guided, might beget very evil issues. Recall to mind the avalanches of your admired Alps, that you have often thought about, and remember that at first their mass is small and their momentum little. A trite comparison you may say, but I cannot think of a better illustration, when viewing the gradual aggregation of trifling events, growing into a menacing destiny for the Theos. Soc. It came quite forcibly upon me the other day as I was coming down the defiles of Kouenlun â Karakorum you call them â and saw an avalanche tumble. I had gone personally to our chief to submit Mr. Hume's important offer, and was crossing over to Lhadak on my way home. What other speculations might have followed I cannot say. But just as I was taking advantage of the awful stillness which usually follows such cataclysm, to get a clearer view of the present situation and the disposition of the "mystics" at Simla, I was rudely recalled to my senses. A familiar voice, as shrill as the one attributed to Saraswati's peacock â which, if we may credit tradition, frightened off the King of the Nagas â shouted along the currents "Olcott has raised the very devil again! . . . The Englishmen are going crazy. . . . Koot Hoomi, come quicker and help me!" â and in her excitement forgot she was speaking English. I must say, that the "Old Lady's" telegrams do strike one like stones from a catapult! "
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-4.htm

Only 10-20 years later there was still a Russian plot brewing....

Alexander Berzin's website says ---- :
"For example, in 1893, the Buryat Mongol physician Piotr Badmaev submitted a plan to Czar Alexander III for bringing parts of the Qing Empire under Russian sway, including Outer and Inner Mongolia and Tibet. He proposed extending the Trans-Siberian Railway from the Buryat homeland at Lake Baikal through Outer and Inner Mongolia to Gansu, China, next to the Tibetan border. When completed, he would organize, with Buryat help, an uprising in Tibet that would allow Russia to annex the country. Badmaev also proposed establishing a Russian trading company in Asia. Count Sergei Yulgevich Witte, Russian Finance Minister from 1882 to 1903, supported Badmaevâs two plans, but Czar Alexander accepted neither of them."
.......
"Dorjiev and Czar Nicholas II
The Buryat Mongol monk Agvan Dorjiev (1854-1938) studied in Lhasa Tibet from 1880 and eventually became one of the Master Debate Partners (Assistant Tutors) of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. He also became the Dalai Lamaâs most trusted political advisor.
The Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1890 had established Sikkim as a British protectorate. The Tibetans did not acknowledge the convention, and were uncomfortable with both British and Chinese designs on their country. Thus, in 1899, Dorjiev visited Russia to see if he could secure help to counter these threats. Dorjiev was a friend of Badmaev and hoped that Russiaâs expansionist policy in Northeast Asia at the expense of China would extend to the Himalayan region. Count Witte received him on this and his next several visits. On behalf of the Buryat and Kalmyk Mongols living in St. Petersburg, Dorjiev also petitioned permission for building a Kalachakra temple there. Although the Russian authorities were not interested in either proposal, Dorjiev sent a letter to the Dalai Lama reporting that the prospects for assistance looked hopeful.

At first, the Dalai Lama and his ministers were hesitant but, on his return to Lhasa, Dorjiev convinced the Dalai Lama to turn to Russia for protection. He argued that Russia was the Northern Kingdom of Shambhala, the legendary land that safeguarded the Kalachakra teachings, and that Czar Nicholas II was the incarnation of Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelug tradition. As evidence, he pointed to the Czarâs protection of the Gelug tradition among the Buryats, Kalmyks, Tuvinian Turks in the Russian Empire. Swayed by his argument, the Dalai Lama dispatched him back to Russia in 1900."
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/kalachakra/shambhala/russian_japanese_shambhala.html?query=Panchen+Lama

The Panchen Lama is the spiritual head of the Gelugpa Buddhists. The Dalai Lama is merely their political and administrative head. The Dalai Lama institution is a - later invention - and there was originally not a political institution in the Gelugpa Tradition. The Occultists and Esotericist do most often not meddle directly in politics - but may in times of crisis intervene and seek to propose helpful activities. We make no unwilling slaves...and seek to avoid Psychological Conditioning or Coerceing the individual by political legislations on a piece of paper (a man made Law of Karma - called altruism) - and by the use of weapons, police, wallet laywers, and judges. - You may correct me if I am wrong.

ADEPTS AND POLITICS (see primarily Editors Note)
"Neither the Tibetan nor the modern Hindu Mahatmas for the matter of that, ever meddle with politics, though they may bring their influence to bear upon more than one momentous question in the history of a nationâtheir mother country especially. "
.......
"If any Adepts have influenced Washington or brought about the great American Revolution, it was not the âTibetan Mahatmasâ at any rate; for these have never shown much sympathy with the Pelings of whatever Western race, except as forming a part of Humanity in general."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v6/y1883_167.htm




M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Augoeides-222@Y6bnpHBSPFevmjPKLFlLOuKcDOicZebwiMniYwy4AAS6iut-xXrnuE6p1daeZcmLeL7tQ2pW0Vvs-6BOVXGOMw.yahoo.invalid 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:54 PM
  Subject: theos-talk Re:off topic-- Lama Dorgiev


    


  Daniel and all, 

   Here are more information on Dorgiev who is alledged to have meet Madame Blavatsky. One  interesting naunce about him is that he was involved in connexions between the British and the Russian Government's at a time that was critical to Tibet's future and this fact was widely known to all partys back then. It makes me wonder if this chance meeting was the establishing factor that contributes to the false rumours that Madame Blavatsky was a "Russian Spy" acting against the interests of certain others like England and China. In all I recall reading about that controversy  where she is accused or alledged to be spying no where was there mention of her contact with, or interaction with Agvan Dorgiev who actually was privy to the Highest "sources" of the Russian throne as was later the Buryyat Shaman Pyotr  Badmaev who was close to Czar Nicolas II. Both of these unique persons founded landmark establishments at the very heart of Russian cosmopolitan life at St. Petersberg and Moscow. 

  Agvan Dorgiev -Wikipedia 

  >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agvan_Dorzhiev<<< 

  Agvan Dorgiev  and the Temple he establiashed 

  >>>http://www.marhotin.ru/marhotin-datsan-eng/<<< 

  A gvan Dorgiev You Tube Video (in Russian but many very nice archive black and white  histo ric shots 

  >>>http://wn.com/Agvan_Dorjiev<<< 

  Lobsang Paldan Yeshe 6th Panchen (Tashi) Lama 

  >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobsang_Palden_Yeshe<<< 

  Special Places for the Kalachakra and Shambhalla 

  >>>http://kalachakranet.org/kalachakra_tantra_places.html<<< 

  Explore the Kalachakra Mandala (very excellent informative well done and executed graphical explanations) 

  >>>http://kalachakranet.org/mandala_kalachakra.html<<< 

  Pyotr Badmaev S haman Physician to Czar Nicolas II 

  >>>http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/kalachakra/shambhala/russian_japanese_shambhala.html<<< 

  Here is a nice Map to go with the above Badmaev article 

  >>>http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/images/en/russia_japan_tibet_shambhala_map.gif<<< 

  The Trials of Dandaron --- Buryat Buddhists 

  >>>http://www.tricycle.com/feature/the-trials-dandaron-buddhist-perseverance-russia<<< 

  Maybe some inspired researcher in Russia wil someday locate Dorgiev's letters or writtings and translate them to english and publish them, who knows but that there might be letters between Dorgiev and madame Blavatsky   

  John 

  ---------------------------------------------------------- 

  . 

  From: "Govert Schuller" <schuller@G8nfoqyBCp9WlLAcHFKfg07ONjm93MF5i9xKyWShogQGdVNL0Ez7Ha7iMW4tm7NrIM6P4kU-j1EZDRHYvSc.yahoo.invalid> 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:06:53 PM 
  Subject: RE: theos-talk Marion Meade "explains" HPB's cup and saucer incident??? 

    

  Dear Daniel, 

  I think it's quite unreasonable to expect Meade to bring the investigation 
  of the 'cup and saucer phenomenon' to your level 4 of 'probability' of 
  either confirmation or refutation, while the one and only person who could 
  have brought the phenomenon to a solid step 4 refused when challenged to do 
  so and threw a tantrum, which, procedure-wise, cannot be found in any of 
  your steps of discovery. 

  Later, one of the participants of the picnic and, Major Philip Henderson, 
  wrote to the Times of India: 

  "On the day in question, I declared the saucer to be an incomplete and 
  unsatisfactory manifestation, as not fulfilling proper test conditions. My 
  reasonable doubt was construed as a personal insult, and I soon discovered 
  that a sceptical frame of mind in the inquirer is not favourable to the 
  manifestations of the marvels of Theosophy." (Mr. Hodgson's Report, p. 266) 

  Meade's step-2 hypothesizing that trickery was a very good, reasonable, 
  naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon based on her step-1 gathering of 
  observational statements is imo quite acceptable given the fact that she is 
  in no position (like any of us) to gather step-3 experimental data in this 
  particular case, let alone get to a step-4 probable theory. 

  Maybe you meant that Meade is not properly processing the level-1 statements 
  by the picnic participants and therefore doesn't get her step-2 hypothesis 
  right. I'm open for that. 

  In short, you are chiding Meade for not producing something which, even 
  according to your own discovery protocol, is procedure-wise impossible, 
  while HPB, who was allegedly capable of producing something satisfactory 
  according to evidentiary protocol, refused to do so. 

  From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com ] On 
  Behalf Of Daniel 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:42 AM 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Subject: theos-talk Marion Meade "explains" HPB's cup and saucer incident??? 

  BELOW is what I wrote on Theos-Talk years ago using an example from Marion 
  Meade's book on HPB to show how Ms. Meade "uses" (misuses) the 4 step method 
  I recently wrote to Govert about here at Theos-Talk. 
  > 
  > Brigitte Muehlegger now tells us to look for an 
  > explanation about the teacup and saucer incident in 
  > Marion Meade's MADAME BLAVATSKY, p.223-224. 
  > 
  > Brigitte, do you actually agree with Meade's 
  > "explanation"? 
  > 
  > Is Meade's explanation just one of many "possible" 
  > explanations or is Meade's explanation the most 
  > "probable" explanation in light of all the known 
  > evidence? In other words, are we at step 2 or at step 
  > 4 with Meade's "explanation"? 
  > 
  > Anyway, as Brigitte ponders the above, I give Meade's 
  > explanation: 
  > 
  > "At the time and even later Alfred could find no 
  > loopholes in what came to be known as 'the cup and 
  > saucer incident.' He based his conviction mainly on 
  > the fact that Madame Blavatsky could not have known in 
  > advance that there would be seven guests in the party, 
  > as the judge had arrived only at the last minute. 
  > OBVIOUSLY she did know, and so did Patience Sinnett 
  > because Olcott overheard her telling the butler: 'It 
  > was very stupid of you not to put in another cup and 
  > saucer when you knew that the other gentleman would 
  > have to have tea.' It seems reasonable TO ASSUME that 
  > H.P.B. had instructed Babula to bury the cup and 
  > saucer, then led the picnickers to the spot herself. 
  > In fact, this notion had already occurred to the judge 
  > and police chief who later in the afternoon examined 
  > the site. Their final conclusion was that it was 
  > theoretically POSSIBLE for someone to have tunneled in 
  > from below and thrust the cup and saucer up into the 
  > place where they were discovered. Apparently Babula 
  > later confided to Emma Coulomb that this was exactly 
  > what he had done. In the experts' opinion, the 
  > phenomenon could not be accepted as scientifically 
  > perfect and, somewhat indelicately, they 
  > challenged her to repeat it under test conditions. 
  > Helena, who had worked hard to stage the tableau, 
  > could not keep herself from exploding. Henry vividly 
  > remembered that 'she seemed to take leave of her 
  > senses and poured out upon the two unfortunate 
  > skeptics the thunder of her wrath. And so our pleasant 
  > party ended in an angry tempest.' " Caps added 
  > 
  > Well, Steve, what do you think of Meade's 
  > "explanation"? 
  > 
  > Now a few more questions to ponder: 
  > 
  > Is Meade actually explaining the incident [at step 4] 
  > or is Meade simply speculating [at step 2]? See 4 Step 
  > Process at: 
  > http://blavatskyarchives.com/history3.htm 
  > 
  > Is Meade simply using the "unpacking" method I've 
  > described before? 
  > [See 
  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4421 
  > ] 
  > As Ray Hyman wrote: "it is ALWAYS possible to 
  > 'imagine' SOME scenario in which cheating no matter 
  > how implausible, COULD HAVE occurred." Caps added. 
  > This is a step 2 technique. 
  > 
  > Is Meade simply using the "possibility/plausibility" 
  > method of argument? See 
  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4423 
  > for an example. 
  > 
  > Has Meade followed the Barzun and Graffe dictum? 
  > 
  > "The rule of 'Give Evidence' is not be be violated. . 
  > . .No matter how possible or plausible the author's 
  > conjecture it cannot be accepted as truth if he has 
  > only his hunch [which is not evidence] to support it. 
  > Truth rests not on possibility or plausibility but on 
  > probability. Probability means the balance of chances 
  > that, GIVEN SUCH AND SUCH EVIDENCE, the event it 
  > records happened in a certain way; or, in other cases, 
  > that a supposed event did not in fact take place." 
  > Caps added. 
  > 
  > Daniel H. Caldwell 
  > BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES 
  > http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm 
  > "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things 
  > at their right value; and unless a judge compares 
  > notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a 
  > correct decision." 
  > H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218. 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > __________________________________________________ 
  > Do You Yahoo!? 
  > Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! 
  > http://mail.yahoo.com/ 
  > 

  No virus found in this message. 
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4763 - Release Date: 01/24/12 

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

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



  

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