Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00309)

Steve: "I recall there is a book called THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT 
which deals extensively with the Judge scandal and in which Annie 
Besant is quoted in connection with that scandal. In one of the 
Besant quotes she accuses Judge of writing letters in "the 
handwriting adopted by Madame Blavatsky for mahatma letters." I 
remember that ohrase because I was struck by it when I first 
encountered it."

Steve:"The content of the Judge Mahatma letters seems to have come 
through two spirit mediums Judge was using but it was probably Judge 
who forged the mahatma script. He sent a whole letter to someone over 
his own signature and in the KH script just to show he could do it. 
He seems to have swiped what was left of Blavatsky's supply of 
Chinese paper, that Blavatsky was used for the Mahatma letters,from 
her desk when she died. Besant and Olcott did not go after Judge for 
this, though, and Sinnett was doing the same thing. So were others." 

Well yes, and Sinnet said about the same thing, that Blavatsky wrote 
them: 
"I may as well at once explain, what I only came to realise myself in 
the progress of later years, the true charakter of this 
correspondence. The letters were not, in the beginning what I 
imagined them to be- letters actually written by the Master and then 
forwarded by occult means either to Blavatsky or deposited or 
deposited somewhere about the house where I should find them.- But 
for the most part , if not always, were dictations to a competent 
clairaudient amanuensis and Madame Blavatsky was generally the 
amanuensis in question." (A.P.Sinnet, The early days, p,27) 

However Theosophical apologetics will then of course quote Harrison 
who wrote that the Master script was different from HPB's handwriting.

Paul Johnson (hwo wrote three books on related subjects) when asked 
by me about that mentioned ; 
The author is quite explicit in saying that he does not claim 
to "demonstrate from an analysis of Madame Blavatsky's 'ordinary' 
writing that she could not have been responsible for the KH letters." 
Nevertheless, I get the distinct impression that his study is being 
put to polemical use by Theosophists overinterpreting Harrison 
as "vindicating" HPB -- which he explicitly told me, in person, that 
he has not done. Harrison allows for the possibility that in altered 
states of consciousness HPB wrote in handwritings so different from 
that of her normal waking personality that they could not be 
recognized as coming from the same hand, even by experts. Given 
Olcott's testimony to this effect, and abundant references to HPB 
as "amanuensis" of the Masters, it seems to me the most plausible 
explanation of the physical origin of most of the Mahatma letters. 
There are two particular logical problems I find in Harrison's study, 
specifically in his Replies to Criticism. First, he distinguishes 
between Hodgson's thesis that HPB was "an ingenious but common 
fraudster and impostor having no supernatural powers whatever" who 
produced the KH letters with intent to deceive and the alternative 
that the writing was "received automatically, in trance, sleep, etc., 
unknown to the conscious personality until he or she reads it." These 
are presented as mutually exclusive alternatives that exhaust the 
possibilities. I think the evidence leads us rather to consider that 
different letters were produced in different circumstances, and that 
no one-size-fits-all assumptions about those circumstances can be 
stretched to accommodate the various instances of questionable 
authorship. 
Second, Harrison asks "if we accept Olcott's testimony as evidence 
that HPB could write in altered states of consciousness, do we accept 
his further testimony" about a specific paranormal event he 
witnessed, and "if not, why not? I do not see how you can select or 
reject evidence to suit your argument. Olcott's testimony is that HPB 
possessed psychic powers in abundance. You cannot accept both Olcott 
and Hodgson." My response to this is to say that we can accept 
Olcott's testimony as evidence of what he believed he had witnessed 
without accepting that his interpretation of his experience was 
accurate. That HPB appeared to be writing in a trance state from 
which she emerged with no memory, that she behaved as if this were 
the case, can be accepted as fact based on Olcott's testimony and 
others from the period. That she "possessed psychic powers in 
abundance" is Olcott's inference and not at all in the same category 
of evidence. Contemporary scholars cannot accept either Hodgson or 
Olcott as infallible interpreters of evidence, nor as unbiased 
reporters of that evidence. But each is a crucial primary source, and 
the testimony of each must be included in the process of sifting and 
weighing evidence for and against HPB's claims. Each deserves full, 
skeptical scrutiny. Neither can be assumed to be always right or 
always wrong. But the gist of Harrison's study, as I see it 
being "spun" by Theosophists, is to dismiss Hodgson across the board 
and allow continued acceptance of Olcott's and HPB's claims as 
entirely reliable.

Also Paul Johnson mentioned; Rather than HPB writing them alone (the 
Meade 
version) or their being psychic dictation from distant Masters (the 
orthodox version) the only plausible explanation to my mind is that 
they are a collaboration between HPB and Indian associates who are 
feeding her information. As to how they were physically produced, I 
consider that a blind alley and waste of time. No one will ever know. 
Damodar could have been helpful as a source drawn on by HPB for his 
inside knowledge of Indian religion, as were Subba Row and Mohini. 
The volume of the letters does not require a large network of fellow 
conspirators, or a small one, or in fact any at all. Given what we 
know of HPB's ability to produce a large volume of writing in a short 
time, composing the Mahatma letters in the time period in which they 
appeared is quite within her abilities. The circumstances of the 
letters' delivery would, in a few cases, require some conspirators. 
Among those suggested by other writers have been Damodar and the 
servant Babula; in the case of the Coulombs two witnesses confessed 
to having been part of a conspiracy. 

But more important Blavatsky herself wrote regarding her work as a 
medium; "And thus I must confess that three-quarters of the time the 
spirits spoke and answered in my words and out of my own 
considerations, for the success of my own plans. Rarely, very rarely, 
did I fail, by means of this little trap, to discover people's hopes, 
plans and secrets. " (Maria Carlson , No Religion Higher Than Truth, 
p. 316.)

And also Sotheran a verry experienced esotericist, who had worked 
verry closely with Blavatsky and was also co-founder of the TS, made 
it clear that the "confident interpretations of the Society are 
fallacious" and that hPB was totally without occult power. "Afther 
intimate knowledge of her for a considerable period. I can affirm 
that in my humble opinion she possesses NONE WHATEVER, 
notwithstanding she may have psychologized herself and her champions 
into believing so"(Sotheran, "To the Editor of the Banner of Light" 
28/26, Januari 15,1876)

Afther having joined the TS with Dayananda, Blavatsky trye'd to 
employ Chintamon in spiritualistic type "phenomena" later 
attributed to Morya and K.H., Chintamon, "revealed as a thief, and 
who later told C. Massey that he had never been even a chela and had 
no occult powers whatsoever. Blavatsky in January 1879, on her way to 
India, caused a china pot to be produced in Massey's presence, and 
topped that wonder by causing a small Indian card case to appear in 
his overcoat pocket with a slip of paper inside bearing Chintamon's 
signature-proof of the origin of the phenomenon." Chintamon, revealed 
as a thief, later told C. Massey that he had never been even a chela 
and had no occult powers whatsoever.( John Deveney Astral Projection 
or Liberating of the Double and the Work of the Early Theosophical 
Society, pp 62-63.)
So given the examples of fraud ans Blavatsky I cited before (below)
I think here phenomena have to be assumed to be fraudulant.

However theosophists should go outside there limited source of 
literature, and inform themselve of current day scientific, research 
and sincere parapsychological research of a recent date I think.

Brigitte