Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00476)

The following statement regarding HP Blabatsky appeared in the New 
York Times in 1885. It is an important observation by one who knew 
her personally, but who was not a Theosophist, let alone a 
theofundie, and who was a careful observer. This is valuable because 
it is a much more balanced view than the accusations that emanated 
from Central Europe a few months ago and were posted on this list 
from there:

"By those who knew her only slightly in this country she was 
invariably termed a charlatan. A somewhat better acquaintance 
developed the thought that she was a learned, but deluded, 
enthusiast. And those who knew her intimately and enjoyed her 
friendship were either carried away into a belief in her powers or 
profoundly puzzled, and the longer and more intimate the friendship 
was the firmer the faith or the deeper their perplexity became. The 
writer was of the last class. The closest study of a trained New York 
reporter failed for over two years to convince him that she was 
either a fraud or self?deluded or that her seeming powers were 
genuine. That she wrought miracles will be denied flatly, of course, 
by all persons whom the world calls sober?minded, yet there are 
scores of people who will swear today [written in 1885] that she did 
work them in New York."

This assessment comes from "Mme. Blavatsky's Power ? Events in the 
career of a remarkable woman", New York Times, January 2, 1885. 
Notice that the person making the statement was privileged to 
actually meet the principals in this drama, which we of course are 
not, that he was objective (neither came to jeer nor to cheer) and 
that he brought training and a desire to get at the truth to the 
Lamasery. His testimony therefore seems to me to qualify as good 
scientific evidence. I would therefore suggest that this belongs to 
that select class of evidential items which includes the Gephard 
letter incident, the Shannon letter incident, the buried teacup 
incident, and so on.

Having said that he was unable to say that "her seeming powers were 
genuine," the author nonetheless tells the following interesting 
story:

"Madame Blavatsky said (in 1877) that she was 80 [years old]. This 
seemingly wild statement she clung to, although everyone who heard it 
pronounced it incredible. The writer, however, was only one of many 
who noted real variations from time to time in her apparent age. It 
was not unusual for her to seem to be 60 years old. As frequently, 
however, she appeared to be no more than 35. It was impossible to say 
what made the difference, but that the difference actually occurred 
is beyond question. O'Donovan, the sculptor, Walter Paris, the 
artist, and Wimbridge, who fairly ranked with either of them as an 
artist, all discussed and studied this phenomenon without being able 
to explain or understand it. These three are cited among many 
observers simply because as artists they must be accredited with 
accurate habits of observation. Mme. Blavatsky herself declared that 
she made herself older or younger at will. She would not discuss the 
question of the potential immortality of the body, and neither argued 
nor denied that it could be attained, but she affirmed openly that 
she had gone far enough toward the attainment of it to make herself 
young whenever she chose. How it was done she never explained."

"As a friend Madame Blavatsky was steadfast and devoted to an 
unusual degree. Credulous by nature, she had been imposed upon by so 
many that she learned to limit her circle, but up to the time she 
left America she was always liable to imposition on the part of any 
designing person."

Such characters as Solovyoff, Coulomb, etc., could probably be 
assessed properly in light of that statement.

The article continues:

"Those who knew her best believe her to have been entirely incapable 
of a mean or dishonest act. The honesty of her utterances was often 
questioned, but never by those who knew her well enough to understand 
how she was often carried away by her own eagerness and credulity."

"A case in point. A ghost story was started some eight years ago 
[written in 1875] by some unknown person on the east side of town, 
near the river. It was declared that the disembodied spirit of a 
watchman who had been known in his lifetime as 'Old Shep' had been 
seen around where he had worked, and that it came to a certain dock 
every night in a ghostly boat. Many people in the neighbourhood of 
Thirtieth Street professed to have seen this, and among these persons 
were several policemen. Mme. Blavatsky was one of a party who visited 
the river one midnight in hope of seeing the ghost. It is useless to 
say that no ghost appeared, and a careful investigation of the story 
(which was made) failed to develop anything like respectable evidence 
of its truth. Yet Mme. Blavatsky always insisted that the story was 
true ? insisted angrily when the story was ridiculed. 'There are 
ghosts and ghosts,' she said once to the writer, when she was 
questioned about 'Old Shep'."

"It is likely," she said, "in the case of 'Old Shep', the watchman, 
that he does not know he is dead, and his last thought was probanly 
that he was going his rounds. So he will continue to go his rounds 
until that thought fades away, and under certain conditions he will 
be visible to the physical eyes of those around him."

In regars to the question posed by someone whether Theosophy is 
Kashmiri Sikhism or Vaishnaivism or whatever, it should be entered 
into evidence that she told the NYT reporter "I am a Buddhist." Said 
she:

"The Buddhists teach that whatever is beyond the power of human 
language to describe, beyond the reach of human intellect to 
conceive, whatever is impossible in any measure to understand, is, so 
far as man is concerned, non?existent, and what we term God is 
therefore non?existent. It is merely a refinement of metaphysics."

"how impossible it was for anyone to hold controversy successfully 
with Mme. Blavatsky. Accepting as demonstrated facts things and 
thoughts that seem to every day mortals to be ingenious dreams, and 
denying, as she did, what are held ordinarily to be fundamental 
proved facts of human knowledge, there was no common ground of 
argument between her and most of her antagonists. You cannot argue 
with anybody who will speak disrespectfully of the multiplication 
table."

"One of Mme. Blavatsky's friends, an artist, sat with her in her 
parlor one day, shen she suddenly said, 'Make a sketch for me and I 
will see if I can control you.' He began sketching without, he says, 
knowing exactly what he should draw, but thinking presently that he 
would make a picture of an Oriental head, he drew one. When he had 
finished she unlocked a drawer and showed him a facsimile of what he 
had drawn, excepting that the headdress was slightly different in the 
two pictures. The pose, features, and expression of the two could not 
be told apart. The artist solemnly declares that he never saw the 
picture and never thought of the peculiar type of face before. Such 
stories could be told by the dozens, and for each one a reputable 
witness could be produced to swear to the truth of it."