Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00150)

V. S. Solovyov's Testimony concerning the Master Morya 
can be read at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/32969

This text was written by Solovyov BEFORE he turned against
HPB.

The original of this narrative was written by Solovyov on October 1, 
1884.  See the original text in French published as one of the 
appendices to the First SPR Report of 1884.  [This is NOT the later 
1885 "Hodgson Report".]

Here is a link to the 1884 text:

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/app38.htm

It was this text that Beatrice Hastings translated in her 
SOLOVYOFF'S FRAUD and that I quoted.

Now notice what Solovyov wrote:

"That same evening, Mr. Olcott found in his pocket a little note,
that all the Theosophists said was in the handwriting of M:

'Certainly I was there, but who can open the eyes of him who will
not see.' "

At the BOTTOM of the above quoted appendice, one will find several 
comments added by the 1884 SPR committee.

One of the comments reads in part:

"One of the Committee [probably Mr. F.W.H. Myers] HAS SEEN the 
letter found in Colonel Olcott's pocket, which is in the M. 
handwriting." caps added.

Therefore here we have confirming evidence. That is, the letter in 
Morya's handwriting, etc. 

One might conclude that the Master Morya wrote said letter in which 
he confirmed that he had been in Solovyov's room and had appeared to 
Solovyov.

And concerning the experiences of Miss de Glinka, 

[see the above Solovyov narrative at:  

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/32969

for references to her. ]

the 1884 S.P.R. committee added:

"The lady . . . recounted her experience to one of us; but, for 
reasons which we comprehend and respect, she does not wish to commit 
it to paper."

Miss de Glinka testified that the Master had also appeared to her 
the same night. 

And in addition, one should keep in mind that HPB kept corresponding 
with Solovyov and was on good terms with him for months if not up to 
a year AFTER he wrote this testimony.

Therefore, when Carlos writes about "the lies coming from Soloviof",
does he include the above account by Solovyov among the "lies"?

Is this testimony an example of "fraudulent texts"?

Is this testimony NOT "authentic"??

If Carlos is saying this, I wish he would explain his reasoning.

I would really like to understand HIS REASONING, HIS THINKING and 
I'm sure a few other readers might like to understand how he came to
this conclusion.

Again I am referring to the SPECIFIC text written by Solovyov posted 
at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/32969

Daniel
http://hpb.cc


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
<carlosaveline@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Dear Daniel, dear  Friends, 
> 
> 
> My answer to your clever statements below is that HPB never 
invited people to help circulate the lies coming from Soloviof. 
> 
> On the other hand, she closed a letter to A.P. Sinnett, from 
Würzburg, with these words: 
> 
> "Watch your impressions and turn your back on the S.P.R. and its 
rabid idiots." (1) 
> 
> A sentence containing another kind commentary on certain people's 
level of brain activity.  
> 
> As you know, the SPR adopted Soloviof's "testimonies" just as you 
do. 
> 
> 
> Best regards, Carlos. 
> 
> NOTE:
> 
> (1) "The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett", T.U.P., see 
p. 244. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, danielhcaldwell@...
> 
> Cópia:
> 
> Data:Fri, 5 May 2006 19:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Assunto:Theos-World Carlos on "fraudulent texts" --- 
NOT "authentic" texts
> 
> > Carlos,
> > 
> > You wrote:
> > 
> > "A true researcher do not publish fraudulent texts as
> > if they were authentic."
> > 
> > Now in regards to the testimony given at:
> > 
> > "V. S. Solovyov's Testimony Concerning the Master" 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/32969
> > 
> > are you telling Theos-Talk readers that this testimony
> > is an example of "fraudulent texts"?
> > 
> > That this testimony is NOT "authentic"??
> > 
> > If you are, can you please explain your reasoning
> > which led you to this conclusion? Why is this text
> > "fraudulent" and NOT "authentic"?
> > 
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc