theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re: Did the TS fail because of HPB and a Mahatma-Craze?

Dec 05, 2009 05:37 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen


Dear Christina and friends

My views are:

Here is a critical review of the movie....


MY VIEWS ABOUT THE "Madame Blavatsky Satanist Traveller 1 of 6 (Theosophy The NWO's/Zeitgeist Religion)" by Donna Zuckerbrot and others.


Let me write a few words before I will seek to show the readers that the below mentioned videos contain problematic, misleading and even false portrayals of H. P. Blavatsky (HPB).

I think that theosophists or proclaimed theosophists and especially the authors of the videos (or movie) aught to think twice before they start attacking the old lady HPB in a unjustified manner.

The scholary views presented in the videos about H. P. Blavatsky are according to my knowledge and the below words based on half-honest scientific view, which do not clearly understand that when a member of The Theosophical Society were accused of being an imposter - the blame should not fall upon the whole Theosophical Society - exactly because the Theosophical Society was from beginning not a sect - and because the Theosophical Society was from the beginning fighting against any kinds of dogmatism clearly knowing that dogmatism will not create a Universal Brotherhood of mankind. And this when the speakers or at least some of the must know that the Theosophical Society sought to avoid such dogmatism (at least in the years 1875-1891) and create a Universal Brotherhood of mankind through - comparative studying. - Later after HPB died in 1891, the Theosophical Society might have failed terribly in this respect, but this is not what I am talking about in this text.

AND some of the speakers in the videos tend to say: My view is more true than H. P. Blavatsky's because it is better to replace one hypothesis with another - without clearly examining whether their own hypothesis is false or not, and without clearly examining whether their own hypothesis is in accordance with the aims of the Theosophical Society.

It will in the following be a good idea to keep in mind, that H. P. Blavatsky was not the Theosophical Society. And that it was a fact that the Theosophical Society was created to follow its aims - and that H. P. Blavatsky's aims if proven to not be in accordance with these aims will have to stand corrected. Let it be so that truth In the below, it also has to be taken into account, that some of the videos might have been tampered with. At least so that some of the content given by the speakers in them might have been taken out of context. A theosophical Seeker aught to bear something like this in mind in these days.


***


On the Internet-based Youtube the videos are today called:
"Madame Blavatsky Satanist Traveller 1 of 6 (Theosophy The NWO's/Zeitgeist Religion)"

They or it appear to be directed by Donna Zuckerbrot a film-maker on various spiritual subjects. If going through her movies, one will find a scholary presentation of various issues and a certain tendency to follow a Christian mind-set. 

The following just shows me how wrongly the truth about H. P. Blavatsky are being absorbed.



*** VIDEO 1 ***

1.
"She was ambitious to attract the attention of the world." (Time: 0:08-0:10)

M. Sufilight says:
I would rather say that Blavatsky was ambitious to help mankind in the name of altruism.


2.
"Nobody before here had the audacity to try to do a global interpretation of spirituality the way that she did." (Time: 1:18-1:20)


M. Sufilight says:
Yes. Maybe she was the only one who did it the way that she did. But saying that there were none before here who did something similar is not quite true. H. P. Blavatsky her self referred to the Maha-Manvantaras, Manavantaras and to persons like Ammonious Saccas, Pot-Amun and others. This is at least a more true view about her.


3.
"Nobody else could give what she gave to the world."

M. Sufilight says:
Why on earth forward such a false or misleading statement? Anyone with a sane mind know, that she referred to the fact that others were more wise than herself. She talked about Masters etc. etc. - Why postulate somkething like this, which merely is the same as feeding peoples minds with a doctrine of belief and even a misleading one?

It seems as if the speaker wants to make her into a God something similar.

4.
"Blavatsky would make it common place to see eastern religions Hinduism and Buddhism as important sacred teachings." (Time: 1:48-1:50)

M. Sufilight says:
This is not true on her behalf, when we talk about Hinduism. Hinduism contains many false branches, which Blavatsky did not consider to be in accordance with the theosophical teachings. And even the same with Exoteric Buddhism. Such exoteric teachings Blavatsky never considered sacred, at least not in the word as it is understood by most people today.


5.
"Few in Toronto we never have heard of Yoga let alone practised it"...."Today in almost any city on the planet, you can choose between dusins of flavours of this ancient mystical practise of India." (Time: 2:30-2:32)


M. Sufilight says:
(The video are at the same time showing Hatha-Yoga being performed. - And this being done as if it was due to H. P. Blavatsky that such a non-theosophical teaching are promoted today? )

- It is sad how this video gives people a totally wrong picture about what H. P. Blavatsky considered theosophy to be all about. H. P. Blavatksy said:

"Hatha Yoga (Sk.) The lower form of Yoga practice; one which uses physical means for purposes of spiritual self-development The opposite of RÃja Yoga."...and...

"Raja- Yoga (Sk.J. The true system of developing psychic and spiritual
powers and union with one's Higher Selfâov the Supreme Spirit, as the
profane express it. The exercise, regulation and concentration of
thought. Raja-Yoga is opposed to Hatha-Yoga, the physical or psycho-
physiological training in asceticism. "...and...

"Reohaka (Sk,), A practice in Hatha Yoga, during the performance of Pranayama or the regulation of breath : namely, that of opening one nostril and emitting breath therefrom, and keeping the other closed; one of the three operations respectively called Puraka, Kumbhaka and Rechaka â operations very pernicious to health. "

- - -
And the video appearntly even encourages the viewers to buy a mat and start practicing this wierd doctrine! - Yak, I have had enough such non-theosophical teachings about Blavatsky being thrown at her face. - I beg of you to spare her. But will you do that?

But maybe the authors by the video, just merely wanted to show how the world has changed since H. P. Blavatsky formulated her doctrines. But the truth is, that all these changes are not due to H. P. Blavatsky - at least not because she never promoted Hatha Yoga. But the video are not really telling the viewers about this. And this insinuation and unnecessary display of a bad teaching alone make me reject the videos on the spot!


*** VIDEO 2 ***

1.
"She tried to be a medium" (Time: 1:38-1:42)


M. Sufilight says:
Not quite true. In Cairo she tried to help people avoid being mediums in the ordinary sense this word is understood in even today!

It is mentioned in a letter to A. P. Sinnett if my memory serves me well.


2.
"She worked making articifical flowers in a factory" (Time: 3:35-3:38)

M. Sufilight says:
I have never heard that documented with regard to New York, only with regard to Kiev, and that is maybe note even true. But maybe I am wrong?


In Blavatsky's Collected Writings we have:
"It is difficult to say whether we can credit Witteâs statement to the effect that she opened an ink factory and an artificial flower shop at Odessa during her stay there." (BCW, vol. p. 1)



*** Video 4 ***
1.
"They were the first westerners to become Buddhists in a formal, official ceremoni." (Time: 4:18-4:25)

M. Sufilight says:
Well, yes perhaps according to scholary knowledge.

2.
"The number of letters was about 145" (Time: 4:45-4:52)

There were many more letters not officially known today. Some were burnt as mentioned somewhere by Blavatsky.
Damodar recieved dozens each day says Blavatsky:
"Let Hodgson try again & find some other fraudulent phenomenon to fit this documentary proof in âred inkâ.  Such documents in red-ink & blue pencil Damodar received by dozens daily as every chela does â & this is why he is in Tibet, & happier than we are here." (See "Two Letters from H.P. Blavatsky to Dr. Wilhelm HÃbbe-Schleiden"  - http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpblet010486.htm )


3.
"She did miracles like crazy. The letters from Koot Hoomi giving instructions to her or just giving information were flying like crazy. They landed on peoples heads."... (Time: 6:04-6:25)


M. Sufilight says:
How can such letters or miracles be created without Blavatsky be taken to be crazy, unless the motive when doing it is or was crazy? - And now I will ask how on earth does Marion Meade know that it was done in a crazy manner? (Yes, i know American jargon, but that does not remove the fact, that the words might be taken wrongly by others even if they were not intended by Marion Meade to be so. - The authors behind these six videos has a purpose, and it seems more and more clear, that it is not a fair and compassionate and objective one.)

And the whole thing about the letters are here in the video being blown out of proportion. The issue about the letters first reached the public eye negatively, when the Coulombs started attacking her in a very unjustified manner. - Yes. Blavatsky created letters, but not that many. A great number of them cannot be blamed on her since they happened miles away from where she was, and since she was not the "mailer" of them. Damodar received dozens of them.




*** Video 5 ***

1.
About R. Hodgson:
"He talked to everyone he could find." (Time: 0:47-0:50)

M. Sufilight says:
That is not quite true. R. Hodgson talked primarily with those who were against the Theosophical Society and against H. P. Blavatsky. But, actually Prove it in physical writing I cannot.


2.
"Both Blavatsky and Olcott both blamed each other for the sensationalism that led to the investigation, and then the negative report." (Time: 1:47-1:52)

M. Sufilight says:
Again. This is not quite true. They did actually not blame each other. They rather talked about it unofficially! It is wellknown, that scholars only learn through the knowledge they have at their disposal. But do they need to distort the truth?


3.
"She was saying if Olcott had not made such a cult of the Masters inflaming peoples imaginations with tall tales about them, then the Indian followers and the westerners would never have become so crazed with worship of the Masters, that everything would have collapsed." (Time: 1:58-2:10)


M. Sufilight says:
This was not what H. P. Blavatsky said. She did not accuse Olcott to be the cause and sole cause of any collapse. K. Paul Johnson are actually referring the issue in a false manner. Let the following quotes make this fact clear.

H. P. Blavatsky said in Letters to A. P. Sinnett, p. 111-114 + 147:
"Olcott with all his grand qualities has becomeâespecially of late and under new influences of which I shall not talkâa perfect bag of conceit and silliness. This he does unconsciously. He will be led by no one except the Master he saysâand Master refuses to lead him except on very important business having nought to do with his personal or the SocietyâsâKarma. Resultâcomplete flapdoodle.âIl pose pour le martyr! 

Theâpoor man. So blinded is he, that honestly believing he is thereby saving the Society, the CAUSEâas he expresses itâhe adopted of late the policy of propitiating the Moloch of public opinion by cautiously admitting that I might have supplemented at times bogus for real phenomena!; that I am suffering at times from mental aberrationâand so on. He is stupid enough in his real and immaculate, though ever unwise honesty, to forget that by admitting even so much, and that which he knows for a certainty to be falseâhe thereby confesses himself the first and chief confederate in the alleged bogus phenomena."


"Yes; it is Olcottâs cramming of the Cambridge Psychists with his experiences; and his wretched, cheeky appearance with his Buddha on the wheels, at that meeting of the S.P.R.âthat brought on us all the misery. Yet he denies it. He actually maintains in India, and to my face, that it is I the only cause of it; that it is my visit to Europe that caused it all! Wellâbe it so.

No; you are mistaken, if you think, that it is the Masters who want people to believe me guilty. On the contrary; though unable to help me directly for they dare not meddle with my Karma, they are too just not to desire to see me defended by all those who feel honestly that I am innocent. Those who do, only help their Karma, those who do notâput a stain on it. Believe me every such defence is recorded by Them. What They want is, only to show that phenomena without the comprehension of the philosophical and logical conditions that bring them aboutâare fatal and will ever turn disastrous."
...
"It is right that I should be ready to become the goat of atonement for the good and progress of the Theos. Society by withdrawing from the movement, in order not to irritate too much the wild Bull. But what good can I do the cause by permitting myself to be considered a mercenary, vile wretch, by allowing Patterson and Hodgson slanders to go uncontradicted? I do it positive harm. And that is what Olcott and many others do, by half-measures, by pretending to confess that I may be guilty and that it is quite possible, by even withholding from the Theosophist the addresses of sympathy and condemnation of my slanderers sent to me by the Paris and Odessa theosophists and also the German branch. What right have they to suppress those Addresses that were sent to Adyar to be published in our journal by Drummond and Mad. de Morsier, by General Kogen and Zorn, by Hubbe Schleiden and others?"
...
"Speaking of O.âI can only sayâpoor, poor Olcott; I can never cease loving him, one who was my devoted friend and defender for ten years, my chum, as he expresses it. But can only pity one so dull, as not to comprehend instinctively, that if we were theosophical twins during our days of glory, in such a time of universal persecution, of false charges and public accusations the âtwinsâ have to fall together as they have risen together, and that if I am calledâat all events half confessed a fraud by him, then must he be one also. Had I not known him still watched by the Masters, and protected to a certain extent by MASTER, I would have sworn he was possessed by Dugpas. 

Fancy him writing to Miss Arundale, Baron Hoffmann, and many others I could name that I was mad (in the real sense of the word) and had been mad many years; that I may have been guilty of bogus phenomena at times, in my moments of mental aberration and whatnot! -- Guilty in one, guilty in all. Ah poor, poor fool, who digs an abyss under the Theosophical Society with his own hands!"
...
"When I think that I stand open to prosecution for defamation because I wrote in a private letter that a woman who wrote such a letter to Mohini must be a Potiphar; and that every one in England seems to have a legal right to accuse me openly and publicly of bigamy, trigamy and prostitution without my being able to say one word in my defence in a Court of LawâI am inclined to send for a dose of peppermintâI feel sick with disgust. "


And that is quite another story than the one given by the Scholar K. Paul Johnson in that video.

- - -

"See The Report of the Committee Appointed to Investigate the Phenomena connected with the Theosophical Society, Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, No. IX, p. 310. Actually, the S. P. R. never investigated the psychic phenomena of H.P.B. It appointed a Committee for that purpose. But neither did the Committee do any investigating. It appointed an agent, Richard Hodgson, but neither did he investigate the phenomena -- for the phenomena in question had taken place months (and often years)before! He gathered dossiers of battered "testimony" from "witnesses" now under consideration. "
http://www.blavatskyfoundation.org/carrith1.htm#(32)


4.
"When you are speaking of the imaginary Mahatmas, you are right" (Time: 2:27-2:30)


M. Sufilight says:

When did H. P. Blavatsky ever say such a thing? She never did, not unless the quote is taken completely out of context.

And if she did, she most certainly added something like this...
"ENQUIRER. But, of course, these Masters do exist? 

THEOSOPHIST. We affirm they do. Nevertheless, this does not help much. Many people, even some Theosophists and ex-Theosophists, say that they have never had any proof of their existence. Very well; then Mme. Blavatsky replies with this alternative:âIf she has invented them, then she has also invented their philosophy and the practical knowledge which some few have acquired; and if so, what does it matter whether they do exist or not, since she herself is here, and her own existence, at any rate, can hardly be denied? If the knowledge supposed to have been imparted by them is good intrinsically, and it is accepted as such by many persons of more than average intelligence, why should there be such a hullabaloo made over that question? The fact of her being an impostor has never been proved, and will always remain sub judice; whereas it is a certain and undeniable fact that, by whomsoever invented, the philosophy preached by the "Masters" is one of the grandest and most beneficent philosophies once it is properly understood. Thus the slanderers, while moved by the lowest and meanest feelingsâthose of hatred, revenge, malice, wounded vanity, or disappointed ambition,âseem quite unaware that they are paying the greatest tribute to her intellectual powers. So be it, if the poor fools will have it so. Really, Mme. Blavatsky has not the slightest objection to being represented by her enemies as a triple Adept, and a "Mahatma" to boot. It is only her unwillingness to pose in her own sight as a crow parading in peacock's feathers that compels her to this day to insist upon the truth. " 
...
"The tree is known by its fruits; and as all Theosophists have to be judged by their deeds and not by what they write or say, so all Theosophical books must be accepted on their merits, and not according to any claim to authority which they may put forward. "
(The Key to Theosophy, p. 298 + 300 ) 

Again we witness K. Paul Johnson lying his ears of.
I can only suggest to this man to seek to be honest and admit that he has attacked a honest woman a thousand times in a terribly unjustified manner? Criticism is allright. But not when it merely rests on maligned false or clearly undocumented suspicion about an individual.


He even posted about these videos on the forum named The Theosophical Network - dec. 3, 2009 - only a few days ago.
http://www.theosophy.net/profiles/blogs/madame-blavatsky-spiritual

I just wonder how long will time pass before the members there learn that they are being deceived by this person.




5.
"And the theosophys fate is now build on a house of sand." 
...
"But it is Olcott's fault because he fanned the flames of the sensationalism. Conviniently forgetting who caused Olcott to become such an enthusiast of the Masters in the first place." (Time: 2:40-2:54)


M. Sufilight says:
When did H. P. Blavatsky ever say something like this in a litteral sense meaning, that it could not be redirected to something useful for the original programe given by the Masters? Why take her words litterally and out of context - and not understand that she intended the reader of these particular words in a private letter to wake up and not think that the Theosophical Society is in trouble because of the acceptance of non-scientific evidence produced by R. Hodgson? - These questions are not dealt with. 

We just hear these negative accusations by K. Paul Johnson whom well-known theosophist call a theosophist today - even when he non-scientifically call the Master KH and M for imaginary and false.

And again K. Paul Johnson attacks H. P. Blavatsky for being her own master behind all the sensationalism evolved by Olcott's behaviour saying that she was the one who all the time had been behind all olcott ever did. - This is just not proper. It is immoral accusation and a clear lie. - H. P. Blavatsky cannot have been the sole cause behind Olcott's deed and mis-deeds. Olcott was no puppet. He was influenced by many other persons than H. P. Blavatsky. And we all know that chelas do fail on their path. Olcott did. Yet he struggled and came back at least for a while. This was and is the whole truth about this issue.

Lies and nasty accusations one piled on top of the other. What will the next ugly words be?



- - -
Added later...

Dear Rose:
About the letter which allegdly made Olcott consider suicide: I think one can find it being referred to by Blavatsky in a letter to A. P. Sinnett. See "THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY to A. P. SINNETT" p. 75-77 - "Poor Olcott is ready to commit suicide.".

But the words by the speakers in the videos have twisted this to be caused by H. P. Blavatsky, and not as her letter says that it was because the influential A. O. Hume told everyone Hodgson included that there were no Mahatmas and that the whole HQ was implicated.




M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Christina 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:14 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Did the TS fail because of HPB and a Mahatma-Craze?


    
  This video's are also to be seen on you tube, just for a long time.
  I have put them on my page in www.theosophy.net.

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear friends
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > I just received the following link in an e-mail:
  > 
  > Madame Blavatsky: Spiritual Traveller (6 videos)
  > http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=3213
  > 
  > I dear say that those videos are not quite correct in thier formulations.
  > 
  > - - -
  > 1.
  > One issue has to do with the problem which can be called the Mahatma-craze.
  > Did the TS fail because of HPB and a Mahatma-Craze?
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > 
  > H. P. blavatsky clear rejected its importance by saying the following in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, p. 294-297:
  > 
  > "ENQUIRER. But if the Masters exist, why don't they come out before all men and refute once for all the many charges which are made against Mdme. Blavatsky and the Society?
  > 
  > THEOSOPHIST. What charges?
  > 
  > ENQUIRER. That they do not exist, and that she has invented them. That they are men of straw, "Mahatmas of muslin and bladders." Does not all this injure her reputation?
  > 
  > THEOSOPHIST. In what way can such an accusation injure her in reality? Did she ever make money on their presumed existence, or derive benefit, or fame, therefrom? I answer that she has gained only insults, abuse, and calumnies, which would have been very painful had she not learned long ago to remain perfectly indifferent to such false charges. For what does it amount to, after all? Why, to an implied compliment, which, if the fools, her accusers, were not carried away by their blind hatred, they would have thought twice before uttering. To say that she has invented the Masters comes to this: She must have invented every bit of philosophy that has ever been given out in Theosophical literature. She must be the author of the letters from which "Esoteric Buddhism" was written; the sole inventor of every tenet found in the "Secret Doctrine," which, if the world were just, would be recognised as supplying many of the missing links of science, as will be discovered a hundred years hence. By saying what they do, they are also giving her the credit of being far cleverer than the hundreds of men, (many very clever and not a few scientific men,) who believe in what she saysÃââinasmuch as she must have fooled them all! If they speak the truth, then she must be several Mahatmas rolled into one like a nest of Chinese boxes; since among the so-called "Mahatma letters" are many in totally different and distinct styles, all of which her accusers declare that she has written.
  > 
  > ENQUIRER. It is just what they say. But is it not very painful to her to be publicly denounced as "the most accomplished impostor of the age, whose name deserves to pass to posterity," as is done in the Report of the "Society for Psychical Research"?
  > 
  > THEOSOPHIST. It might be painful if it were true, or came from people less rabidly materialistic and prejudiced. As it is, personally she treats the whole matter with contempt, while the Mahatmas simply laugh at it. In truth, it is the greatest compliment that could be paid to her. I say so, again.
  > 
  > ENQUIRER. But her enemies claim to have proved their case.
  > 
  > THEOSOPHIST. Aye, it is easy enough to make such a claim when you have constituted yourself judge, jury, and prosecuting counsel at once, as they did. But who, except their direct followers and our enemies, believe in it?
  > 
  > ENQUIRER. But they sent a representative to India to investigate the matter, didn't they?
  > 
  > THEOSOPHIST. They did, and their final conclusion rests entirely on the unchecked statements and unverified assertions of this young gentleman. A lawyer who read through his report told a friend of mine that in all his experience he had never seen "such a ridiculous and self-condemnatory document." It was found to be full of suppositions and "working hypotheses" which mutually destroyed each other. Is this a serious charge?
  > 
  > ENQUIRER. Yet it has done the Society great harm. Why, then, did she not vindicate her own character, at least, before a Court of Law?
  > 
  > THEOSOPHIST. Firstly, because as a Theosophist, it is her duty to leave unheeded all personal insults. Secondly, because neither the Society nor Mdme. Blavatsky had any money to waste over such a law-suit. And lastly, because it would have been ridiculous for both to be untrue to their principles, because of an attack made on them by a flock of stupid old British wethers, who had been led to butt at them by an over frolicksome lambkin from Australia.
  > 
  > ENQUIRER. This is complimentary. But do you not think that it would have done real good to the cause of Theosophy, if she had authoritatively disproved the whole thing once for all?
  > 
  > THEOSOPHIST. Perhaps. But do you believe that any English jury or judge would have ever admitted the reality of psychic phenomena, even if entirely unprejudiced beforehand? And when you remember that they would have been set against us already by the "Russian Spy" scare, the charge of Atheism and infidelity, and all the other calumnies that have been circulated against us, you cannot fail to see that such an attempt to obtain justice in a Court of Law would have been worse than fruitless! All this the Psychic Researchers knew well, and they took a base and mean advantage of their position to raise themselves above our heads and save themselves at our expense. "
  > http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm
  > 
  > 
  > So all this about Blavatsky being an imposter and making a mistake might not be true when dealing with this particular issue.
  > 
  > - - -
  > 2.
  > One mistake she did according to letter no. 54 from Mahatma KH was:
  > 
  > "And now, do you want to know how far she is guilty? Know then, that if she ever became guilty of real, deliberate deception, owing to that "zeal," it was when in the presence of phenomena produced, she kept constantly denying -- except in the matter of such trifles as bells and raps -- that she had anything to do with their production personally. From your "European standpoint" it is downright deception, a big thundering lie; from our Asiatic standpoint, though an imprudent, blamable zeal, an untruthful exaggeration, or what a Yankee would call "a blazing cock-a-hoop" meant for the benefit of the "Brothers," -- Yet withal, if we look into the motive -- a sublime, self-denying, noble and meritorious -- not dishonest -- zeal. Yes; in that, and in that alone, she became constantly guilty of deceiving her friends. She could never be made to realize the utter uselessness, the danger of such a zeal; and how mistaken she was in her notions that she was adding to our glory, whereas, by attributing to us very often phenomena of the most childish nature, she but lowered us in the public estimation and sanctioned the claim of her enemies that she was "but a medium"! But it was of no use. In accordance with our rules, M. was not permitted to forbid her such a course, in so many words. She had to be allowed full and entire freedom of action, the liberty of creating causes that became in due course of time her scourge, her public pillory. He could at best forbid her producing phenomena, and to this last extremity he resorted as often as he could, to her friends and theosophists great dissatisfaction. Was, or rather is, it lack of intellectual perceptions in her? Certainly not. It is a psychological disease, over which she has little if any control at all. Her impulsive nature -- as you have correctly inferred in your reply -- is always ready to carry her beyond the boundaries of truth, into the regions of exaggeration; nevertheless without a shadow of suspicion that she is thereby deceiving her friends, or abusing of their great trust in her. The stereotyped phrase: "It is not I; I can do nothing by myself. . . it is all they -- the Brothers. . . . I am but their humble and devoted slave and instrument" is a downright fib. She can and did produce phenomena, owing to her natural powers combined with several long years of regular training and her phenomena are sometimes better, more wonderful and far more perfect than those of some high, initiated chelas, whom she surpasses in artistic taste and purely Western appreciation of art -- as for instance in the instantaneous production of pictures: witness -- her portrait of the "fakir" Tiravalla mentioned in Hints, and compared with my portrait by Gjual Khool. Notwithstanding all the superiority of his powers, as compared to hers; his youth as contrasted with her old age; and the undeniable and important advantage he possesses of having never brought his pure unalloyed magnetism in direct contact with the great impurity of your world and society -- yet do what he may, he will never be able to produce such a picture, simply because he is unable to conceive it in his mind and Tibetan thought. "
  > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-54.htm
  > 
  > Some inaccuracies are mentioned in Letter no. 5 as well.
  > 
  > Errare Humanum Est.
  > 
  > Yet I dear ask those who are behind the above very scholary videos...
  > But why in heavens name - crucify - her so much because of her doing something as trivial as that mentioned by the named master KH?
  > 
  > - - -
  > Some of us are aware of and know and do not only believe that the Masters whether male or female or not are truely real.
  > 
  > Any comments?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application