Theos-Talk Archives (August 2008 Message tt00176)

Frank, I originally wrote this to you:

---------------------------------
...Now it is true that the sentence that you object to

"Bismarck and Beaconsfield are types of black magicians."

is NOT in Julia's extract.

But the attentive reader will notice that in comparing the TWO
versions the sentences in the two extracts are arranged DIFFERENTLY,
etc.
---------------------------------

And Frank, your reply was:

---------------------------------------
this is what I expected, that we agree that the alleged message 
coming from Master K.H. as published by the New York group which 
seceded from Tingley's mother society (The Aryan TS of New York) is 
obviously "improved" - proofed by Bismarck insertion....
---------------------------------------

Sorry, Frank, you are in error in assuming that we agree.

At this point in time, I have no considered opinion one way or the 
other but simply consider it [this issue concerning Bismarck]  as a 
wonderful opportunity to do some further research and see what can or 
cannot be discovered and concluded.

Moving on....

Frank, let me quote another statement of yours which reads:

-------------------------------------------------------
No student of Blavatsky can escape his/her traditional mindset and in 
the case of the Bismarck insertion it seems that Julia Keithley could 
not escape her English (not necessary Scotish or Irish) mindset in 
regard to Germany of fear and hate....
-------------------------------------------------------

I find this statement of yours quite interesting but aren't you
jumping to a conclusion that may not in fact be true?

In 1890 and 1889 when Julia quotes the relevant material from this KH 
Commentary and yet she does NOT give the "Bismarck and Beaconsfield" 
statement, one cannot tell from Julia's PUBLISHED quotes given in THE 
PATH if the more complete copy of KH's remarks that she had in her 
possession actually contained or did NOT contain the "Bismarck and 
Beaconsfield" statement.

Maybe the more complete copy she had in 1889/1890 did contain the 
Bismarck statment and she chose for whatever reason(s) not to include 
it.  Or maybe the more complete copy that she possessed at this time 
did NOT contain the Bismarck statement.

How do you know which possibility is or is NOT true?

Furthermore, in 1901 when "the New York group which seceded from 
Tingley's mother society" issued to their esoteric students the 
version that I have on my website, how do you know that Julia 
Keightley had any responsiblity in releasing this version?  

Yes, I believe that Julia was a member of this New York group but it 
is unfair to imply or state that she herself inserted the Bismarck 
statement and then --- on top of that --- to speculate about her 
resulting English mindset.

I would suggest that we need some evidence to support these 
suppositions of yours about Julia.  If you have any, then I'm sure 
you will let us know.  But these suppositions of yours --- in and of 
themselves -- are only one of several possible alternative 
explanations -- especially as regards Julia.

I believe you mention at least twice in your posting about "the 
Bismarck insertion".  Are you suggesting that someone --  I assume 
you mean someone in the Hargrove group --- inserted sometime AFTER 
1897 or at least by 1901 this "fake" statement into the KH manuscript 
(which we know from the extracts given in THE PATH existed AT LEAST 
by 1889)? 

I have more comments to add but will stop here so that these points 
are addressed first before we move on to other points.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc