Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tl00030)

W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
> If what you write can be substantiated, please give me the
> references to check.  I want primary and not 2nd or 3rd level
> sources, please.  Or, are you basing yourself on hearsay ?

{quote from me deleted for brevity}

> If you trying to employ the "Hodgson Report" - that has been
> shown defective.  Have you read Vernon Harrison's Monograph on
> the authenticity of the MAHATMA LETTERS ?  [ Published recently
> by TUP, Pasadena ].

	No, the Hodgson Report was not a report, it was a smear job.

> Fortunately "bell-ringing" is not the basis for denigrating HPB's
> integrity, or her "phenomena". What do you think of the shower of
> roses produced at the request of a visiting German professor who
> called on her (without prior notice)in Benares ?  He asked her
> towards the end of the interview if the reports of Vedic Sages
> being able to create a shower of flowers was true and possible -
> and she demonstrated it as a fact, immediately, the last rose
> falling on his departing nose.

	It could have been real. It also could have been set up in case an
effect was needed. We do not know if the professor mentioned any other
effects, or if this was the only one he mentioned. If the former, he
would most certainly have forgotten the ones that did not take place.
That form of selective memory is a standard tool in a professional
magician's arsenal. Very often, the description of a magician's trick
truly is impossible, because the magician works hard to make the key as
unnoticeable as possible.

> And the MAHATMA LETTERS has much
> more to teach than small details about the Master Moriya
> "breaking his pipe."  Or do you not think that some 400 pages of
> Their letters is to be summarized and dismissed in such a
> cavalier fashion ?

	Irrelevent.

> In my esteem the writing of THE SECRET DOCTRINE and ISIS UNVEILED
> is a demonstration of "phenomena" far beyond anyone's present
> capabilities  - and if that is not conclusive phenomena then,
> what is ?  But one has to take a lot of time to study that if one
> desires to be competent to criticize HPB and the philosophy of
> Theosophy.

	Where did I criticize THE SECRET DOCTRINE or ISIS UNVEILED?

> Try and put the whole of her work and life into perspective.  If
> "bell-ringing" is the only thing that is important or suspect -
> to you - then that is very "small potatoes."  And you were not
> there, nor was I, and hence the best we can do is to adduce for
> our judgment what others have written and said.

	I did not say it was important, nor did I say that bell ringing was the
only thing that was suspect. I was asked a question, and I used it as an
example.

> But we are not entitled to be selective, we have to consider all
> the evidence.  None of those writers that I have read have ever
> challenged HPB on the basis of simple "bell-ringing."

	I did not challenge her writings, and was defending her intent.

> Is THEOSOPHY to be jettisoned because of an
> unproven accusation ?  If so, it is flimsy indeed, and does not
> deserve further consideration by serious thinkers !  is that what
> you mean ?

	WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING ALL THIS FROM???????? DID YOU EVEN READ
WHAT I WROTE, OR ARE YOU SO BLINDED BY A FUNDAMENTALIST RELIGIOUS VIEW
OF THEOSOPHY THAT ANY HINT OF ANY IMPERFECTION IN ANY OF THE FOUNDERS IS
BLASPHEMY??????

> To me the ethical and moral implications of Theosophical
> philosophy and the underlying esotericism and occultism would be
> entirely vitiated if HPB had at any time been fraudulent.

	If that statement is true then, in my opinion, you follow Theosophy for
all the wrong reasons. Even the Mahatmas say not to believe what they
say simply because it comes from them; one has to determine for one's
self it is true. Which is the point I was trying to make in the first
place: The Mahatmas, Blavatsky, and, for that matter, Leadbeater all
stated, one way or another, that their beliefs should stand on their
own, and need not be propped up by demonstrations of Siddhi's.

> What is the nature and range of the claims that HPB was
> "fraudulent"  Have you investigated ?  Do you have any data or
> references to offer to us who read what you write ?  should we
> put our trust in you alone for an unsubstantiated opinion ?

	I simply stated a case where Koot Hoomi himself said that Blavatsky was
fraudulent. Unless you take Blavatsky's word over his. That she thought
her motives were good is irrelevent.

> In my esteem your responses show you have neither cause nor
> ability to try to demean her if you are using 2nd and 3rd level
> "sources."  She certainly cannot be "dragged down" to "our very
> ordinary level."  And the repetition of unfounded "gossip" is
> quite unworthy of these pages.
>
> And that is my opinion.  Now, may I see what facts you have ?

	Facts of science, or facts of faith? If the latter, well, you have your
faith, and nothing I say or do will shake it. If the former, well,
scientifically speaking, Occam's Razor puts the burden of proof on you
that they WERE genuine; our initial assumption needs to be that it was
done without Sidhi's unless it can be demonstrated that they were
impossible without Sidhi's.

	Bart Lidofsky