HPB and hashish
Apr 10, 1998 09:06 AM
by K. Paul Johnson
> Dallas TenBroeck writes:
> I read a posting dated April 6th 1998 from "dport@ozmail" in which
> it is alleged without any corroborative reference given that HPB
> smoked hashish daily. This appears to be a deliberate insult aimed
> at HPB. But it demands evidence that supports it.
Actually, if you had read other posts from the same source you
would realize it couldn't have been meant as an insult at all,
since the author promotes the use of visionary drugs.
As for supporting evidence; of course she could not have smoked
it daily after the founding of the TS without someone noticing
it. But there are two sources for her use of hashish earlier in
her life (again, the *daily* bit is unsupported): Albert Rawson's
article in the February 1892 issue of Frank Leslie's Illustrated,
entitled "Madame Blavatsky-- A Theosophical Occult Apology," and
an article by Hannah Wolff in (I think) Two Worlds. At any rate
this source is listed in some available bibliographies, including
Marion Meade's if I'm not mistaken.
> If this is true, may we have a reference that is reliable?
Somehow I doubt that you will accept Rawson or Wolff as reliable,
precisely because they make these statements about hashish. But
that is circular reasoning.
> If it is false may we have a retraction and an apology !
What assumptions underly your expectation that someone who says
something about HPB you don't like hearing owes you or "us" an
> Since HPB is not present to answer this calumny directly, allow me
> to PROTEST clearly and definitely on her behalf.
I don't think she needs that service from you or that your
taking on the role of demander of proofs, demander of apologies,
and protester of alleged calumnies has any positive effect.
Again, what assumptions underly your taking on this role?
> It is cowardly to make accusations in the absence of a person, and
> especially after they are dead and unable to answer.
But as I understand the source, he doesn't view the allegations
at at all negative, quite the reverse.
Let me articulate your apparent assumptions in an unflattering,
but honest attempt to get at the heart of the matter:
1. Anyone who makes any statement about HPB that *I personally*
regard as insulting, because it conflicts with my view of her, had
damn well better provide overwhelming legal proof of it, or else
withdraw said statement or apologize. They have *ME* to answer
2. But I can make any statement about HPB that *I personally*
believe to be true, even knowing that it conflicts with views of
others on the list, without providing one iota of evidence for
it. These spiritual truths are beyond the need of proof to the
wayward souls who can't see their obvious and undeniable
accuracy. *I* answer to no one.
How does that sound? Pretty dogmatic and self-centered, huh?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application