May 23, 2006 01:37 PM
The basic argument was that because these Brahmins still clung
to their gods and beliefs, it would be impossible for the Masters to
have any meaningful conversation with them and so would be a waste of
both of their time. When this letter finally came to light, the
Brahmins understood it to be an edorsement of Buddhism over
This is very well understandable that the Masters could not.
-- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "robert_b_macd"
> Dear Christina,
> From what I understand, Olcott's Mistake is as follows.
> In ML-134 (Letter 30, chrono) HPB forwards a message to Sinnet
> In the letter, dated November 1881, HPB writes on behalf of M. why
> that the Masters will not correspond with the Allahabad
> The basic argument was that because these Brahmins still clung
> to their gods and beliefs, it would be impossible for the Masters
> have any meaningful conversation with them and so would be a waste
> both of their time. When this letter finally came to light, the
> Brahmins understood it to be an edorsement of Buddhism over
> They argued it could not be from the Masters. This left Olcott in
> difficult political position with respect to the Society in India,
> he feared that if he lost the Brahmins' support, that could
> the Society. At this point, in 1895, he already had developed
> concerning HPB's integrity.
> Olcott wanted to disagree with the contents of the letter. Rather
> argue that what the letter said was wrong, he proceeded to
> HPB's credibility by implying that she may have forged the
> not only demonstrated his ingratitude for all that HPB had done,
> hypocritical on his part. The President-founder had done what no
> theosophist had ever done, he had argued his case by attacking the
> messenger. From then on this made it okay for theosophists to
> the message by attacking the messenger. This was precisely what
> Society had been established to prevent (for as long as people
> arguing over the message, civility was guaranteed.) To this day,
> theosophists continue to argue by attacking the messenger.
> Brotherhood was supposed to guarantee that inuendo, slander, etc.
> kept out of the debate. Today people bring up inuendo and slander
> concerning HPB as if it were nothing, and why not? Olcott, the
> President-founder did it!
> As Carlos has pointed out, Olcott, according to Laura Holloway,
> regret his error. In time, perhaps others will learn as well.
> This in short is Olcott's Mistake. I hope that I was able to
> with some clarity.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application