57390Re: off topic about lama dorge
- Jan 24, 2012Daniel, all,
I don't recall who mentioned a senario that madame blavatsky had come upon a lama named "Dorge" in her travel and bbecame acquainted with him to her beneift. On one of my previous PC's I had in my favorites several lins about a kalmuk Shaman who is said to have treated the czar or a member of the czars's family, my memory is foggy here it has been several years. But at any rate this Kulmuk Shaman was also said to have created a Herbal medecine clinic out side of the capitol of russia then, and was also a confident to a high peerage figurecwho had a serious Master Plan outline for the future of Russia. Due to a hard drive crash I lost all those links I had then but in my hard written notes I have names and etc some where if I can find again.
In the mean time I have located a website with information for Dorge also givin in the posted reference here as "Dorgieff " if I recall correct. However as is oftenn the case named seem to never be spelled right when it concerns Theosophy context. So the present used spelling of Dorge in what I have located who was the kalmuk lama is "Dorgiev" this banges me hard in my forehead because it keeps making me think of Gurjieff lol! So here is the link which tells what followed in the life of the Lama Dorgiev after Blavatsky and what the Communists ended up doing to him. Poor soul.
The Shamballa Myth and the West ---- Agvan Dorgiev 1854 -- 1938
Ok, gentlemen what is your take on this new information?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel" <danielhcaldwell@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:41:44 AM
Subject: theos-talk Marion Meade "explains" HPB's cup and saucer incident???
BELOW is what I wrote on Theos-Talk years ago using an example from Marion Meade's book on HPB to show how Ms. Meade "uses" (misuses) the 4 step method I recently wrote to Govert about here at Theos-Talk.
> Brigitte Muehlegger now tells us to look for an
> explanation about the teacup and saucer incident in
> Marion Meade's MADAME BLAVATSKY, p.223-224.
> Brigitte, do you actually agree with Meade's
> Is Meade's explanation just one of many "possible"
> explanations or is Meade's explanation the most
> "probable" explanation in light of all the known
> evidence? In other words, are we at step 2 or at step
> 4 with Meade's "explanation"?
> Anyway, as Brigitte ponders the above, I give Meade's
> "At the time and even later Alfred could find no
> loopholes in what came to be known as 'the cup and
> saucer incident.' He based his conviction mainly on
> the fact that Madame Blavatsky could not have known in
> advance that there would be seven guests in the party,
> as the judge had arrived only at the last minute.
> OBVIOUSLY she did know, and so did Patience Sinnett
> because Olcott overheard her telling the butler: 'It
> was very stupid of you not to put in another cup and
> saucer when you knew that the other gentleman would
> have to have tea.' It seems reasonable TO ASSUME that
> H.P.B. had instructed Babula to bury the cup and
> saucer, then led the picnickers to the spot herself.
> In fact, this notion had already occurred to the judge
> and police chief who later in the afternoon examined
> the site. Their final conclusion was that it was
> theoretically POSSIBLE for someone to have tunneled in
> from below and thrust the cup and saucer up into the
> place where they were discovered. Apparently Babula
> later confided to Emma Coulomb that this was exactly
> what he had done. In the experts' opinion, the
> phenomenon could not be accepted as scientifically
> perfect and, somewhat indelicately, they
> challenged her to repeat it under test conditions.
> Helena, who had worked hard to stage the tableau,
> could not keep herself from exploding. Henry vividly
> remembered that 'she seemed to take leave of her
> senses and poured out upon the two unfortunate
> skeptics the thunder of her wrath. And so our pleasant
> party ended in an angry tempest.' " Caps added
> Well, Steve, what do you think of Meade's
> Now a few more questions to ponder:
> Is Meade actually explaining the incident [at step 4]
> or is Meade simply speculating [at step 2]? See 4 Step
> Process at:
> Is Meade simply using the "unpacking" method I've
> described before?
> As Ray Hyman wrote: "it is ALWAYS possible to
> 'imagine' SOME scenario in which cheating no matter
> how implausible, COULD HAVE occurred." Caps added.
> This is a step 2 technique.
> Is Meade simply using the "possibility/plausibility"
> method of argument? See
> for an example.
> Has Meade followed the Barzun and Graffe dictum?
> "The rule of 'Give Evidence' is not be be violated. .
> . .No matter how possible or plausible the author's
> conjecture it cannot be accepted as truth if he has
> only his hunch [which is not evidence] to support it.
> Truth rests not on possibility or plausibility but on
> probability. Probability means the balance of chances
> that, GIVEN SUCH AND SUCH EVIDENCE, the event it
> records happened in a certain way; or, in other cases,
> that a supposed event did not in fact take place."
> Caps added.
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things
> at their right value; and unless a judge compares
> notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a
> correct decision."
> H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>