Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00124)

Bruce you write:

==================================================================
The members of the TS had lived through the Coulomb and Solovyoff
accusations and were still standing by Blavatsky, even after her 
death. Had they stuck together, these weak attacks would never have 
done any damage. It was the doubt planted by Olcott and Besant that 
made the defenses weak, and the weak attacks relatively strong. If 
previous historians did not see the damage that Besant and Olcott 
did, then perhaps they did not have the advantage of over a century 
of mistakes  to observe....

The only reason that the Coulombs or Solovyoff have any traction is
because Theosophist's have given them that traction (because Olcott 
and Besant erred). Their allegations were empty and spurious then, 
and  they still are. Blavatsky's defenders were put in the position 
of having to defend her because of Olcott and Besant....
=================================================================

The last sentence above is quite interesting:

"Blavatsky's defenders were put in the position of having to
defend her because of Olcott and Besant...."

You assert this is true but I have not seen anything posted here that 
backs up this assertion.

In fact it is unclear to me exactly what your reasoning/thinking is 
behind this claim.

I'm not saying your claim is not true, I just don't quite understand 
it.

When I first became interested in the "attacks", I was not at all 
interested in the matters you refer to concerning Olcott and Besant.
No the focus was on the Coulomb and Hodgson matters.  This is the 
material that is constantly referred to and cited by biographers and 
writers.  As an inquirer and new student I was interested in the 
claims  made by Coulomb and Hodgson.  That is one of the reasons I 
first  wrote  to Mr. Carrithers.  

And I must say that over the years my own correspondents who are 
interested in this matter (Coulomb-Hodgson) never refer to the Besant-
Oloctt connection and many times know nothing about the events of the 
mid 1890s.

And as I said in my previous posting, Hastings, Vania, Waterman and 
Harrison don't focus at all on Olcott and Besant.  Why?

You have an interesting "take" on the subject and certainly it is 
worth exploring but so far I see only an assertion - interesting but 
not clearly defined.  [Unless you have posted something here 
previously explaining in detail your idea.  Have you?]

OBTW, I'm curious:  Have you yourself read the entire Hodgson Report 
and the Coulomb pamphlet?  Not to mention the other relevant material 
published for example in the 1884-1886 time period???

When I first read the Hodgson Report as a relatively NEW student to 
Theosophy, it did not appear "weak" to me.  It raised alot of serious 
questions in my mind.  It was only later after reading and studying 
lots more (especially the defenses by Hastings, Vania, Waterman) that 
I started to see the weaknesses in the Report.  Maybe others have had 
totally different experiences.... 

Daniel