Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00295)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...> wrote:
> Steve, I don't know what exactly is added to the word "charlatan" 
by 
> affixing "mere vulgar" but your opinion appears to be contrary to 
> Brigitte/Brian's view that Blavatsky was a charlatan. 

There are numerous characters who were mere vulgar charlatans, some 
of whom are alive today, and their stuff contains very little 
intellectual content, since their aim was not to study anything but 
to gull people. So we have plenty of examples available for 
consideration of what charlatans produce. If you look at the theory 
of materialization in the SD and see how elegant it is, and if you 
look at the complex system of practices which were developed to demo 
this phenomenon, and thereby "prove" the validity of the principles 
(in the minds of the mahatmas) it is impossible in my mind to 
continue with the theory that these people were in the same class as 
the aforementioned charlatans.

Yes, I think the words "mere" and "vulgar" both meaningfully modify 
the word "charlatan," and, no, I do not believe HPB was a charlanan.