57394Re:off topic-- Lama Dorgiev
- Jan 25, 2012Daniel and all,
Here are more information on Dorgiev who is alledged to have meet Madame Blavatsky. One interesting naunce about him is that he was involved in connexions between the British and the Russian Government's at a time that was critical to Tibet's future and this fact was widely known to all partys back then. It makes me wonder if this chance meeting was the establishing factor that contributes to the false rumours that Madame Blavatsky was a "Russian Spy" acting against the interests of certain others like England and China. In all I recall reading about that controversy where she is accused or alledged to be spying no where was there mention of her contact with, or interaction with Agvan Dorgiev who actually was privy to the Highest "sources" of the Russian throne as was later the Buryyat Shaman Pyotr Badmaev who was close to Czar Nicolas II. Both of these unique persons founded landmark establishments at the very heart of Russian cosmopolitan life at St. Petersberg and Moscow.
Agvan Dorgiev -Wikipedia
>>>http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/kalachakra/shambhala/russian_japanese_shambhala.html<<<Here is a nice Map to go with the above Badmaev article
From: "Govert Schuller" <schuller@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:06:53 PM
Subject: RE: theos-talk Marion Meade "explains" HPB's cup and saucer incident???
I think it's quite unreasonable to expect Meade to bring the investigation
of the 'cup and saucer phenomenon' to your level 4 of 'probability' of
either confirmation or refutation, while the one and only person who could
have brought the phenomenon to a solid step 4 refused when challenged to do
so and threw a tantrum, which, procedure-wise, cannot be found in any of
your steps of discovery.
Later, one of the participants of the picnic and, Major Philip Henderson,
wrote to the Times of India:
"On the day in question, I declared the saucer to be an incomplete and
unsatisfactory manifestation, as not fulfilling proper test conditions. My
reasonable doubt was construed as a personal insult, and I soon discovered
that a sceptical frame of mind in the inquirer is not favourable to the
manifestations of the marvels of Theosophy." (Mr. Hodgson's Report, p. 266)
Meade's step-2 hypothesizing that trickery was a very good, reasonable,
naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon based on her step-1 gathering of
observational statements is imo quite acceptable given the fact that she is
in no position (like any of us) to gather step-3 experimental data in this
particular case, let alone get to a step-4 probable theory.
Maybe you meant that Meade is not properly processing the level-1 statements
by the picnic participants and therefore doesn't get her step-2 hypothesis
right. I'm open for that.
In short, you are chiding Meade for not producing something which, even
according to your own discovery protocol, is procedure-wise impossible,
while HPB, who was allegedly capable of producing something satisfactory
according to evidentiary protocol, refused to do so.
From: email@example.com [mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org ] On
Behalf Of Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:42 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.
>No virus found in this message.
> 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!
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4763 - Release Date: 01/24/12
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>