Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00553)

At 08:47 PM 5/8/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>JHE
>     You might find Victor Endersby's ~Hall of Magic Mirrors~
>interesting in respect to the possibility of a "Brahman plot" to
>take over the Theosophical Society and to thwart its mission.
>Victor gave a "private talk" on this subject to some invited
>guests back in 1984.  I remember at the time thinking to myself
>"come on Victor--not another conspiracy theory--let's let this
>one drop---even if they are true, they are always unprovable---
>etc."  Well, the course of the TS from the time of the Judge case
>to the present is enough to make anyone paranoid about Brahman
>conspiracies.  Besant did adopt Hinduism and with the exception
>of John Coats' short stay, the TS has been controlled by the same
>family ever since.  I don't know if it is true, and it probably
>can never be proven, but the circumstantial evidence is in
>abundance.

alexis
 we must always remember that a great deal of the Indian (not only Brahmin)
antagonism came out of a single source. Resentment of Europeans once again
taking the reins where it should be Indian. This is equally true in
Pondicherry where the Indians are terribly resentful of Europeans running
Auroville.

The big plot was not due to that kind of antagonism however, the real "plot"
was a Palace Coup to put that particular family in a position of great power
(as they saw it), influence, and profit. Given the milieu that is India
today, they do have great power and influence and wealth.

As to "secrets" well, it is my opinions that no secrets of any real value
have been given out to the West. We in the west have our own mysteries and
they are far more valid for westerners. Nothing was "released" by the T.S.
that carries any power with it at all.
>

>VB
>>My position [VB] is that some of the more obvious results of
>>this counter movement to "keep the secrets secret" are the
>>events and works of people such as AB, CWL, and AAB.  What a
>>better way to bury what has been revealed than to lead the
>>leaders into a confusion and mish-mash of ideas.  And in the
>>mean time what do we know of the ancient Vedic philososphy that
>>HPB kept toting to everyone?  Almost nothing over more than a
>>century later.  Where are up to date and *extensive*
>>translations into any english or any other European language by
>>anyone who has an inkling of occult knowledge?  Where are these
>>works so people in the "west" can judge for themselves?  Any
>>theosophists in India on this list care to help me out here?

Alexis:

There are none at all, at least as best I know. There are translations from
the Sanskrit by Max Mueller, but he was no occultist. Everything else is
T.S. "copycats".
>
>JHE
>     Yes, the submersion of deeper teachings brings attention to
>them.  But the confusion of those teachings by changing the
>terminology and then putting it into another context works very
>well.  I think most people in the TS (and probably on this board)
>honestly believe that the teachings of HPB, TSR, APS, AB, CWL
>etc. are really consistent.  I remember a woman in Long Beach
>(California) who came to visit me.  I asked her what her group
>studies.  She named books from all of the above authors, and she
>said that they compare them to each other.  I asked her what they
>do when the find a contradiction.  She said; "we talk about it
>until the contraction goes away."

Alexis:

Now that is a feat of intellectual acrobatics!
>
>>>JHE
>>>HPB wanted Subba Row and Olcott to stand united against the
>>>Coulomb accusations.  Both refused to do so for different
>>>reasons. .....Olcott argued that the accusations would
>>>disappear on their own if the issue was ignored....History
>>>shows Olcott to have been clearly and tragically wrong in
>>>thinking that the accusations would go away.  They re-appeared
>>>as evidence in the SPR investigation....On the other hand,
>>>HSO's and TSR's threats that finally tied HPB's hands into
>>>inaction, clearly resulted in the follow up investigation of
>the SPR...

Alexis:

Nothing in HPB's life was more painful that what he perceived as Olcott's
desertion of him. HPB/Blavatsky desperately wanted to clear this thing up in
a Court of Law, they clearly could have, but they both felt that the refusal
of Olcott and the BOD to permit them to do so was a desertion and a "slap in
the face".
>
>
>VB
>>I disagree about H.S. Olcott.  The Coulomb accusations did
>>formulate publicly into the SPR report against HPB.  They didn't
>>go away in the lifetime of HPB or HSO but what has history
>>proven up to the present date?
>
>JHE
>     Unless I'm missing something, I think we are agreeing very
>well.  Those accusations are still with us.

alexis:
They certainly are! They resurface in articles all the time, most recently
in Smithsonian Magazine.
>
>VB
>>What group (whether it be one or many organizations) has
>>flourished the more - theosophy or SPR?

Alexis:

Actually neither can be said to have "flourished" but presently the T.S> is
far more moribund.
>
>JHE
>     I don't know quite what you mean by "flourished."  I don't
>think the TS has flourished, but rather is dying.  Certainly the
>SPR has a better reputation among the public than the TS.  The
>SPR is regarded as a scientific organization that studies
>phenomena.  The TS is regarded as a funny little cult that mainly
>attracts little old ladies in tennis shoes.
>
>VB
>>Whose version of the issues in the SPR report on HPB has been
>>vindicated by history?
>
>JHE
>     SPR's so far.  Vernon Harrison's report not withstanding.

Alexis:
Vernon Harrison's report has made an "inroad" as it were, and done some
good, as has the SPR's repudiation of the Hodgson Report. But that report is
a thing that will never be allowed to die by those that want to discredit
the theosophical movement and those behind it.
>
>VB
>>What I can't understand is why HPB and HSO both put any emphasis
>>at all on the SPR at the time.  They had hundreds and hundreds
>>of different people and organizations tearing them apart and
>>trying to mutilate them during their days.  Why focus on the
>>SPR?  By paying so much attention to this report they gave it
>>life.

Alexis:

I don't really think they had any choice in the matter, especially HPB.
Another think is that HPB felt that there was nothing "wrong" or "Phony" or
"fraudulent" for the SPR to find. She/he hardly knew the extent of the plot
against her/him.
>
>JHE
>     I don't know about "hundreds and hundreds" but HPB and the
>TS did have enemies.  HPB spent a lot of time arguing with them
>in ~The Theosophist~ and through the press.  The difference
>between those people and organizations and the SPR was simply
>that HPB was restrained from answering the Coulombs and the SPR.
>Rather, they put her on a boat and shipped her out of Adyar.

Alexis:

And believe me she/he has never forgiven any of them! The result of that
anger was the ES!
>
>VB
>>HSO was on the right tract and history has proved him right in
>>the *long* run.  Only HPB and HSO had to die first before the
>>SPR report could die also.
>
>JHE
>     But it has not died.  It is resurrected in every unfriendly
>biography and article about Blavatsky that has even been written.
>Even the recent ~Smithsonian~ article resurrected it.
 Alexis:
Jerry is right Virginia, and I hadn't noticed his mention of the
Smithsonian. But there's also "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" which is
monstrously slanderous.
>VB
>>I [VB] once again have my own theory as to the unreasonable
>>power of the Coulomb accusations.  In Volume 1 of HSO's diaries
>>read the nature of the relations HPB had with her female cooks
>>and housekeepers.  The way I see it, something had to balance
>>out.

Alexis:
HPB was using the Blavatsky vehicle. Blavatsky was a fiery tempered Russian
aristocrat and had, as a child been soundly punished by her Grandmother for
her attitude toward servants. It was a lesson that only partially "took" she
had a really hot temper and took it out occasionally on those she should not
have taken it out on. But I think HSO exaggerates more than a little.
>
>JHE
>     Jean Overton Fuller published a similar view in
>did not give her domestic help enough respect, and that Emma
>Coulomb sought revenge against HPB for the way she was treated.
>Well, it could be a factor.  But the evidence one way or the
>other really isn't there.  The other, more accepted argument has
>the documentary support:  HPB made Emma Coulomb return the
>donations she was collecting from TS members for her own proposed
>Organization.  Coulomb, in anger swore revenge against HPB and
>sold (probably forged) incriminating letters to the ~Christian
>College Magazine.~
>
>>>JHE
>>>I don't question the possibility of an Adept influencing an
>>>idea in the mind of another person.  I do however, question as
>>>to when an idea is inspired by an Adept and when it is not.  I
>>>believe that historical inquiry is often helpful is answering
>>>this question.
>>>[snip]
>>>As I stated above, my assumption is that HPB's exposition of
>>>the doctrines are most faithful to her teachers.  That does not
>>>make her infallible, but it does make her doctrines the primary
>>>ones--next to the Mahatma Letters themselves......

Alexis:
But the Mahatma Letters themselves are terribly mutually contradictory. I
think the "Mahatmas" wrote some few of them and only the Gods know who wrote
the rest.

Why can't HPB
>>>be the primary authority for what she wrote too?  Though Plato
>>>is supposed to have been a re-expression of ancient vedic
>>>philosophy, that does not mean that we have license to
>>>"correct" Plato's writings every time it appears to contradict
>>>something in Vedic Philosophy.  Plato is Plato.  Blavatsky is
>>>Blavatsky.  Subba Row is Subba Row.  Vedic Philosophy is Vedic
>>>Philosophy....

That might be far more true had Pythagoras been the illustration rather than
Plato. Pythagoras is the primarily Vedic-Keltic philosopher. Plato descends
from the Line Thales-Anaxamenes-Anaxamander-Anaxagoras. We have no right to
"correct" anyone's original philosophy for any reason.
>
>VB
>>Yes!  Agree wholeheartedly.
>>
>>Historical inquiry, comparison of written (or recorded) works,
>>and straight intuition - what other way can I judge if Adept so
>>and so communicated with someone or not?  So far, I can't
>>identify anyone who wrote since 1870 who had as direct a
>>connection as HPB did.
>>
>>
>>HPB's works are her works.  She openly said she drew from many
>>sources.  But her writings are her own and she presented them
>>that way from what I can tell.  Authors who mix their sources,
>>call it someone's else's and not their own ideas, and then don't
>>tell where they got their mixture from cause me more confusion
>>than reading them is worth.
>
>JHE
>     Yes.  Two things will really make me impatient with an
>occult or a non fiction work: when there are no citations, and
>when there is no index.  Occasionally a book without an index
>turns out to be worth while, so I usually end up indexing it
>myself.  But a book without citations....&%@*#$!!  :-)

Alexis:

I hate to tell you this Jerry, but I've got a well over 500 page book coming
out and while there are sparse footnotes there are absolutely no citations.
It's a statement of my own philosophy and for it I am the only "authority".
I won't do an index either, people will just have to read the damn thing to
see what I've got to say. Like my art work, it has to be taken as it is.
alexis d.
>
>JHE
>------------------------------------------
>   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
>      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
>         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
>            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
>               ------------------------------------------
>
>
>