Talk:Helena Blavatsky/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Criticism

Blavatsky's racism

In the controversies section it claims that "throughout much of Blavatsky's public life", that her critics claimed she was a "racist". This is highly unlikely, Leon Trotsky did not invent the term "racists" until 1930 (Blavatsky died in 1891). Trotsky's term wouldn't even be popularized until after 1945. Can we get a contemporary source, including anybody calling her a "racist" during her life? - 90.212.77.187 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Comment was recovered from revert in this 2010 edit and relocated into this section. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is it claimed in the article that the criticism against Blavatsky is not documented? It is in her own writings. (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. pp. 402–422.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In the above link, it is not clear to me which quote demonstrates Blavatsky's racist statements. Could you please highlight the exact sentence or series of phrases that lead us to this conclusion? Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.206.204 12 January 2014

I have posted a reply in a similar thread on this talk page here. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Alleged racism and "frauds"

For discussion with Ruvenru

I want to know more about these accusations of fraud and racism that you feel are not already covered in this article. Please provide sources for both allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XercesBlue1991 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Im afraid it was not too fair of you to remove footnoted editing just because you feel you want to know more about the allegations. Wouldn't it be better if you discuss the footnotes? Remember that initially you removed the footnote about the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) only saying that Randi's claims are "poorly researched". Which by the way, is false.

Removing early in the entry the early exposure of her frauds and unsupported claims, would mislead the readers into thinking that her claims were true, which remains to be proven.

Besides, her plagiarism was already documented by Coleman in 1893. Just because Blavatsky or her supporters attempted to contest it, doesn't imply that her claims were true. A balanced entry for Blavatsky should alert of such exposure, still valid, early enough to prevent misleading the reader.

Besides, the statement "most of the accusations remain undocumented" is not properly footnoted, unless we consider valid citing assertions made by Blavatsky herself or by supporters of hers like Vernon Harrison. Much more invalid is footnoting the Hodgson report of 1884, which much on the contrary is one of the early documents about the fraudulent nature of her claims, like it was the article by Rev. George Patterson in 1884.

Please, keep in mind that the editing I made is not only about her frauds and plagiarism, but about the position within the entry where such information should be in order for readers to have a non-partisan knowledge of Blavatsky.

To summarize, the citations I made come from respected authors backed by respected institutions such as Oxford University Press. Removing references to those, and the location of such references early in the entry, would be intentionally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 05:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Randi's work is terribly researched. If you would like, I can go through his article bit by bit. There are a number of glaring and slanderous errors in his entry for Blavatsky. Besides, he has NO sources listed. Randi should stick with stage "magic". He is pretty laughable as a scholar.

Plagiarism has not been documented by Coleman. How much do you know about him? Are you aware that he never published the book that would supposedly expose Blavatsky? He made an outline of what his book would contain after her death (which is a very convenient time by the way if you aren't looking to be challenged). If you, however, have unpublished work by Coleman that needs to be heard, then by all means do so. There have been modern scholars who have taken up the task of finding Coleman's references. No one has found the "famous" thousands of examples.

The article is perfectly fine as is. It reads like an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XercesBlue1991 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

XercesBlue1991, your views about JREF, once again remain inconclusive: your opinion about the quality of their body of research does not suffice to disqualify it as a valid reference. That is simply elementary.

You left uncontested other points of my previous reasoning. The statement "most of the accusations remain undocumented" was wrongly footnoted, misleading the readers on what the source actually said (how revealing that your attentive eye didn't notice such "mistake"), and also taking for granted that what Blavatsky's and her followers said over the years, was enough reference to consider the accusations unproven.

If you are unaware the original sources plagiarized of Blavatsky, I do not mind referring you once again to some of those mentioned in the Oxford University Press book. Remember: that is one of the footnotes you attempted to erase. It was only after my insistence that it was placed in the "criticism" section.

Please be reminded that your personal opinions on Blavatsky's works are respected. But think about your neutrality to edit this entry. Not even a simple rewording, from the biased "Critics" to the more neutral and factual "Some authors", is acceptable for you.

Regardless of your personal opinions and views, proper referencing about the important questioning that other authors had and have about Blavatsky, should appear early in the entry as it happens in several other wikipedia pages (L. Ron Hubbard entry, to mention only one). It is just a matter of honesty and neutrality.

Finally, is not Blavatsky's works that are being questioned by me, is the overall neutrality and quality of this wikipedia entry. A simple look at this whole talk page shows how often the neutrality of this entry has been questioned for lack of neutrality and objectiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

My views are not inconclusive, because I am focusing only on one claim : Randi provides no sources. Why is that considered solid research? Marion Meade provided better evidence for her claims and that is saying something.

Undocumented simply means there is no written work proving the claims. This is certainly true regarding the vast majority of claims (which go far beyond fraud, racist, and plagiarist). I am well aware of the accusations of plagiarism and your Oxford source proves nothing conclusively - it, like Coleman's article, makes sweeping claims of entire works that she plagiarized. Do you have any sources that actually cite passages from Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine and compare them with the original "source"? The readers would be more interested in that. Anyone can made broad claims.

What is wrong with the word "critics"?

This is a matter of neutrality. Criticism of Blavatsky is quite heavy in the Criticism section and your edits reek of bias. Your contributions are welcome, but the sources you have provided suggest nothing more than the "research" of various individuals as little qualified as they may be. They should remain in the criticism section as they reference individual views, not those of the academic community at large. XercesBlue1991 2013-08-03T23:40:52

Because controversy involving Blavatsky deals in a subject that is, one, not a central aspect of her life, and two, a subject of academic dispute, to insist that is intro-worthy fact is to propagate bias. XercesBlue1991 2013-08-04T00:02:24

What is central or not of Blavatsky's life is subject of interpretation. Erasing from early in the entry the controversy she raised is misleading and obscures it. The sentence you are attempting to remove from the intro precisely states the dispute: "Despite the fact that many authors have considered her to be a fraud and a plagiarist..."

The sources provided represent the views of scholars of accredited institutions, as little as you seem to like them. Your statement of "as little qualified as they may be" is, again, an expression of opinion. Significantly, only careful monitoring of the editing of the entry prevented you erasing those on the whole.

What you call "the academic community at large" can never be represented by one or two footnotes, neither in support nor against any topic.

Finally, several other entries in wikipedia include fair references to the views and concerns the subject raised in scholars and authors. They have to appear early enough for the reader to realize about it, and this is the whole point of my editing. You are just removing the sentence based on your views of Blavatsky, instead of focusing on the neutrality of the entry.

To resolve the talk, kindly offer a sentence for the intro that, like elsewhere in wikipedia, would alert how contested her works have been. The sample of Ron L. Hubbard is a good one. It is a matter of fairness. Consider reading the existing one in the light of this talk.

Indeed, I agree "anyone can made broad claims". In fact you did. I'm glad you finally narrowed your criticism of JREF from the initial generic criticism, to a specific entry.

The word "Critics" labels all authors, even those who were not critics of her but they simply recognized their plagiarism or frauds. That is why choosing the words "critics" misrepresents their intention. It would be as loaded as stating that defenders of Blavatsky were "apologetics" or simply "defenders", instead of "other authors". It really is as simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why there needs to be a change in the intro. In fact, I think that Hubbard, as detestable as he was, deserves no such abuse in his intro. A Criticism section can and should such handle accusations unless fraud was the only thing that individual was known for. Why not compare Blavatsky's article with the pages of other spiritual leaders. Both Moses and Mohammed, for instance, are surrounded by much controversy over their character and actions. Neither of them contain such unabashed criticism in the intro to their respective articles.

I see your point with author vs. critic, but I think any person who makes accusations of plagiarism and fraud is by nature a critic (which of the people linked would you not describe as critics of Blavatsky?). If you are insistent on the change, might I suggest "some authors".

I don't have a problem with you adding any criticism you wish to the page (at least ones that are sourced), just confine it to the criticism section. I really don't see the need to include it in the intro. Readers are perfectly capable of scrolling down to the criticism section.

I wouldn't call a book published by Oxford university representative of the University itself, but a professor. A professor's work is more commendable though than a blog, and it deserves a place in Criticism section. XercesBlue1991 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok! Now the problem is not just sourcing a blog that summarizes other authors, but is the sentence itself...

It is simply untrue to refer as "such unabashed criticism" the simple yet accurate sentence "Despite the fact that many authors have considered her to be a fraud and a plagiarist..." It truly shows you are very partial in this topic.

Besides Ron L. Hubbard, also the entry for Moses includes a reference that even his existence is under dispute, besides mentioning other inconsistencies of the Exodus. Far from supporting your claim, it works against it.

I'm beginning to realize that there is a matter of intellectual balance here. Your attempt to justify that the entry of Blavatsky in particular should be exempted of such neutral presentation, is still invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 05:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the existence of such characters, but their actions. What if either Moses or Mohammed's entry read "Despite the fact that many people consider x to be a murderer, x still has many followers today. See Criticism for more information",

I am not "partial" (what ever that means) to the topic, I just oppose such accusations having a place of prominence. The page is quite neutral and needs no further editing. XercesBlue1991 (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hubbard's and Mose's actions are also questioned in the fact that the validity of the exodus is questioned. Nobody removes those statements just because they side with the scholars that support the validity of the exodus.

I understand you do not support to the criticism Blavatsky received, but such criticism appeared prominently in her lifetime and afterwards, and they deserve a mentioning in the intro.

I'm afraid you are wrong again by saying "The page is quite neutral". There is a whole lineage of questioning in this same talk page, to disprove such claim.

Instead of disregarding the debate, please kindly provide a sentence for the intro that would match similar existing entries in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 05:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither Moses nor Mohammed are treated with the same bias as you would give to Blavatsky.

Again, you continue to make unfounded accusations. I have no problem with you presenting criticism towards Blavatsky, just put it in the appropriate section (which I have already taken the liberty of doing for you). If any criticism is to be mentioned, perhaps it should be more akin to the way it is presented on Edgar Cayce's page (the last sentence of the intro of this version). XercesBlue1991 (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Finally! A point of agreement! I would find a sentence similar to this: "Skeptics challenge Cayce's alleged psychic abilities and traditional Christians also question his unorthodox answers on religious matters such as reincarnation and Akashic records. However, others accept his abilities as 'God-given'."

I find it acceptable to wikipedia standards. Again, it is not criticism per se, but just referring that there were issues raised in her lifetime and afterwards. Would you mind proposing the actual wording? The one that I propose and you want to erase is the best I can come up with.

On the side: Moses is not treated with bias, nor I would treat with bias Blavatsky just by saying in the intro that she was seen as a fraud and a plagiarist by contemporaries. It was not me who was trying to defend her by erasing valid footnotes, remember at first?

As for unfounded accusations, of which so far I have made none, I suggest we let the casual readers see our previous talk, and the page itself. It will be self-explanatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion: "During her lifetime and up to now, the authenticity of her writings and the validity of her claims, were questioned by different authors." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good model. Perhaps I can edit the wording to reflect the existence of critics and supporters. I will think on it tonight. Is there a particular source you want to mention concerning criticism? I would like to source Zen scholar D. T. Suzuki for a positive mention. XercesBlue1991 (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. I would like to refer to both books, the Oxford University and the Berkeley University (footnotes numbered 89 and 90)

A good way to present both views could be doing it in two consecutive sentences, somehow like the Cayce sentences. Just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am about to add the sources, but tell me what you think of the most recent change? -- XercesBlue1991 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I like it, I find it a true statement. Please, instead of the too generic "some", kindly consider writing "Some authors", or "Different authors", or "Some scholars"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 07:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. I must say, I am rather pleased that we reached a compromise. -- XercesBlue1991 (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, we constructed concordy. May serve as a sample to others. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvenru (talk • contribs) 08:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Racial theories

I'm from German Wikipedia and I do not have time to read all of this ^^ but the following is very important and must be included in the article, section "racial theories". Please note the following:

"Let me take a concrete case," she said. [...] "Take the English," she repeated. "How cruel they are! How badly they treat my poor Hindoos!" [...] "but it is always three for themselves and one for the natives. But what is the use of material benefits, if you are [...] made to feel all the time that you are an inferior race,— a lower order of mortals,— pigs, the English call them, and sincerely believe it. Well, just the reverse of that would be universal brotherhood. Do them less good materially,— not that they do so very much, besides collecting the taxes regularly; and respect their feelings a little more. The English believe that the 'inferior races' exist only to serve the ends of the English; but we believe that they exist for themselves, and have a perfect right to be happy in their own way. No amount of material benefit can compensate for hurting their souls and crushing out their ideals. Besides there is another side of all that, which we as Theosophists always point out. There are really no 'inferior races', for all are one in our common humanity; and as we [in the sense of monads] have all had incarnations in each of these races we ought to be more brotherly to them. They are our wards, entrusted to us; and what do we do? We invade their lands, and shoot them down in sight of their own homes; we outrage their women, and rob their goods, and then with smooth faced hypocrisy we turn round and say we are doing it for their good." (Mr flapdoodle's quote from German language source was replaced with English language quote with Mr flapdoodle's comment and correct citation by --BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

Mr flapdoodle reiterated that Blavatsky said: "There are really no 'inferior races', for all are one in our common humanity;" (Mr flapdoodle's translation from German language source was replaced with English language quote and correct citation by --BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

Further:

[...] The Africans have never left their continent for several hundred thousands of years. If to-morrow the continent of Europe were to disappear and other lands to re-emerge instead; and if the African tribes were to separate and scatter on the face of the earth, it is they who, in about a hundred thousand years hence, would form the bulk of the civilized nations. And it is the descendants of those of our highly cultured nations, who might have survived on some one island, without any means of crossing the new seas, that would fall back into a state of relative savagery. Thus the reason given for dividing humanity into superior and inferior races falls to the ground and becomes a fallacy. (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 425.) (Mr flapdoodle's quote from German language edition was replaced with English language quote and correct citation by --BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

Mr flapdoodle reiterated that Blavatsky wrote: "Thus the reason given for dividing humanity into superior and inferior races falls to the ground and becomes a fallacy." (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 425.) (Mr flapdoodle's translation from German language edition was replaced with English language quote and correct citation by --BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

If someone could incorporated this in the article, it would be very helpful for a more neutral presentation. Thanks.

References

--Mr flapdoodle (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Cranston's book, HPB, is a notorious piece of special pleading. Blavatsky is absolutely clear that some races are inferior to others. It's just that she explains that in mystical terms. The inferior races were "the latest Monads which had hardly evolved from their last transitional and lower animal forms...this explains the otherwise unaccountable differences of intellectuality between the races of men - the savage Bushman and the European - .... Those tribes of savages whose reasoning powers are very little above the level of animals...are simply the latest arrivals among the human Monads". She goes on to say that the "lowest specimins of humanity...the savage South Sea Islander, the African, the Australian" lack intelligence because they "had no karma to work out when first born", but are now "spinning karma". In other words, her racial hierarchy is the same as the most extreme racist of the era, but she believes that the 'lower' races are not stuck in their condition, but will evolve spiritually over time through some sort of karmic inheritance. It's different from the standard racial-hierarchy view that such races are innately inferior biologically, but the view that they have to as it were, continue to evolve in future to "catch up" is fundamentally no different from the biological-determinist model, even though it's expressed in terms of "karma". Paul B (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I suggest that you read Stanza IX of The Secret Doctrine here. It begins with a charming account of how Tasmanians are descended from "monsters" and so real humans could not interbreed with such "a semi-human, if not quite animal, race". Paul B (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Cranston's book, HPB, cited at this point only another publication and it has been researched well for over 10 years. Can you justify your opinion about the book? And please note the second one is from The Secret Doctrine and it is also very clear.

By the way, we all are descended from these monsters, because the Lemurians were described as monsters. And according to modern science, we are all soulless human monkeys.

I know The Secret Doctrine very well. And as far as I can see the article on this point is relatively neutral but there are no more than these 2 or 3 evident statements in over 2000 sheets of paper and this ones are also related to racial theory of the science of the 19. century. There are such and such statements and both or none should be present for a neutral point of view and the citations mentioned an important new aspect from acceptable source --Mr flapdoodle (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern science does not say we are "soulless human monkeys", or anything like that. I have read your last paragraph several times and I still don't follow it. It's no secret that Cranston's book, HPB, is, as one reviewer put it, "nearly hagiographic" Paul B (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

One reviewer? Did you read it? The first quote is original from "Charles Johnston in "Helena Petrovna Blavatsky", The Theosophical Forum, New York", and the second one from The Secret Doctrine. Where is the problem?

"Humans (variously homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens) are primates of the family hominidae "

"When modern scientists speak of the soul outside of this cultural context, they generally treat soul as a poetic synonym for mind" —Soul#Science

So it is, as I said, according to modern science, we are all soulless human monkeys or primates with a mind in the sense of brain and nervous system, welcome to "reality". And what is the reason for not adding this important fact to objectify the article? Because it is friendly to Blavatsky? Did I understand your reserving correctly? --Mr flapdoodle (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And PS, btw: Cranston's HPB is cited as a source in Goodrick-Clarke. Helena Blavatsky., Goodrick-Clarke. The Western Esoteric Traditions., Johnson. The Masters Revealed., also in "Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna (1831–91)". Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers. Vol. 1. Continuum. 2005. and "Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna (1831–91)". Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Routledge. 2008. and so on ... --Mr flapdoodle (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Paul Barlow, how we do proceed from here? Thanks for helping. --Mr flapdoodle (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there no one who wants to help me with this facts? Or it is not permitted to insert it? Thanks --Mr flapdoodle (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Another important fact, George Mosse (established racism expert) in Mosse, George L. (2006) [1990]. Die Geschichte des Rassismus in Europa. Die Zeit des Nationalsozialismus; Fischer-Taschenbucher (in German). Vol. 16770. Elfriede Burau, trans., Hans-Günter Holl, trans. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch. ISBN 3596167701. Translation of Mosse, George L. (1978). Toward the final solution: a history of European racism. New York: Howard Fertig. LCCN 77024356. wrote that "Theosophy itself was not racist" and it refers explicitly to the doctrine of Blavatsky! This should also be in the article or not? Mr flapdoodle 85.181.81.236 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll add the following two sentences to the end of the paragraph "Racial theories" when no one wish to oppose:

In Sylvia Cranston's biography, Blavatsky is quoted as saying that in reality there is no inferior or low-grade races because all of it are one common humankind.[1] A view which is also evident in the Secret Doctrine.[2]

[1] HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky by Sylvia Cranston and Carey Williams, Edition Adyar, 1995, p. 400

[2] The Secret Doctrin, H.P. Blavatsky, Volume II, Strophe IX, "In this manner the reason for division of humankind into higher and lower races is obsolete and a erroneous belief.

--Teutobald (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Specific to content added in this edit of the article by Teutobald, the quote, or for that matter anything similar to, "In this manner the reason for division of humankind into higher and lower races is obsolete and a erroneous belief", is not found in that stanza, see here, here, and here.

Specific to thread added in this edit of this talk page by Mr flapdoodle, the quote "Auf diese Art wird der für die Einteilung der Menschheit in höhere und niedere Rassen gegebene Grund hinfällig und wird zum Trugschluß." is not found in a Google Book search. Who is actually being quoted? The quote, attributed to Charles Johnson, is not found in the cited work, should the quote be attributed to Cranston's English language book and not the German language translation? What is the verifiable quote from The Secret Doctrine? What is the commentary about such a quote from The Secret Doctrine?

Specific to thread added in this edit of this talk page by 85.181.81.236 attributed to Mr flapdoodle, what is the quote by George Mosse? Please give a citation which includes the title of the work and a full name of the author. having a last name, year and a page is not enough information to identify what is being talked about. Your assertion "wrote that 'Theosophy itself was not racist' " is contradicted by Mosse in his article in Journal of the History of Ideas.

References

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC), modified by BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC) and 01:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to a contributor asked about Blavatsky's racism in another thread on this talk page, I see that she wrote:

Mankind is obviously divided into god-informed men and lower human creatures. The intellectual difference between the Aryan and other civilized nations and such savages as the South Sea Islanders, is inexplicable on any other grounds. No amount of culture, nor generations of training amid civilization, could raise such human specimens as the Bushmen, the Veddhas of Ceylon, and some African tribes, to the same intellectual level as the Aryans, the Semites, and the Turanians so called. The "sacred spark" is missing in them and it is they who are the only inferior races on the globe, now happily — owing to the wise adjustment of nature which ever works in that direction — fast dying out. Verily mankind is "of one blood", but not of the same essence. We are the hot-house, artificially quickened plants in nature, having in us a spark, which in them is latent. (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 421.)

She also held other erroneous pseudoscientific beliefs. For example, Blavatsky wrote that, "Homunculi of Paracelsus are a fact in Alchemy, and will become one in Chemistry very likely" since alchemists have done more than chemists. (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 349.) She also held that,

Human crossing may have been a general rule from the time of the separation of sexes, and yet that other law may assert itself, viz., sterility between two human races, just as between two animal species of various kinds, in those rare cases when a European, condescending to see in a female of a savage tribe a mate, happens to chose a member of such mixed tribes. [...] For the Occultist it is a very evident one. 'Crossing' [...] Europeans with Tasmanian women — i.e., the representatives of a race, whose progenitors were a 'soulless' and mindless monster and a real human, though still as mindless a man — brought on sterility. This, not alone as a consequence of a physiological law, but also as a decree of Karmic evolution in the question of further survival of the abnormal race. In no one point of the above is Science prepared to believe as yet — but it will have to in the long run. Esoteric philosophy, let us remember, only fills the gaps made by science and corrects her false premises. (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 196.)

She explained that,

Of such semi-animal creatures, the sole remnants known to Ethnology were the Tasmanians, a portion of the Australians and a mountain tribe in China, the men and women of which are entirely covered with hair. They were the last descendants in a direct line of the semi-animal latter-day Lemurians [...] There are, however, considerable numbers of the mixed Lemuro-Atlantean peoples produced by various crossings with such semi-human stocks — e.g., the wild men of Borneo, the Veddhas of Ceylon, [...] most of the remaining Australians, Bushmen, Negritos, Andaman Islanders, etc. [...] The Australians [...] are, however, degraded men — not the closest approximation to the 'pithecoid man', as Haeckel so sweepingly affirms. Only a portion of these men are a Lemurian relic. (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. pp. 195–196.)

In calling the animal 'Soulless', it is not depriving the beast, from the humblest to the highest species, of a 'soul', but only of a conscious surviving Ego-soul, i.e., that principle which survives after a man, and reincarnates in a like man. The animal has an astral body, that survives the physical form for a short period; but its (animal) Monad does not re-incarnate in the same, but in a higher species, and has no 'Devachan' of course. It has the seeds of all the human principles in itself, but they are latent. (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 196.)

It is the inner man, the spirituality, the illumination of the physical brain by the light of the spiritual or divine intelligence that is the test. The Australian, the Esquimaux, the Bushmen, the Veddahs, etc., are all side-shooting branchlets of that Branch which you call "cave-men" — the third race [...] They are the remnants of the seventh ring cave-men, remnants "that have ceased to grow and are the arrested forms of life doomed to eventual decay in the struggle of existence" (The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett. p. 120.)

She explicitly states that some people do not have the same kind of soul as other people do. She calls some people "semi-animal creatures" and calls other people "semi-human stock" and calls Australians "degraded men". Above all, she states that "the question of further survival of the abnormal race" is judged by Karma and the inferior races will be extinguished. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Blavatsky made clear that "some of the lower tribes, such as some tribes of the Australian savages" did not descend "from the anthropoid apes, but from human fathers and semi-human mothers, or, to speak more correctly, from human monsters" while "real anthropoids", simians which Blavatsky identified as Ernst Haeckel's catarrhini and platyrrhini, "came far later, in the closing times of Atlantis." Those simians, i.e. Haeckel's catarrhini and platyrrhini, "have a spark of the purely human essence in them; man on the other hand, has not one drop of pithecoid blood in his veins." (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. pp. 192–193.) She believed that her "occult doctrine" was "more logical" and "the reason", she stated, "why the Occultists reject the Darwinian, and especially the Haeckelian, hypothesis is because it is the ape which is, in sober truth, a special and unique instance, not man. The pithecoid is an accidental creation, a forced growth, the result of an unnatural process." (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 261.) She quoted from Sinnett's Esoteric Buddhism that, "Man belongs to a kingdom distinctly separate from that of the animals". This she understood as "a plain and unequivocal statement" and was surprised that Esoteric Buddhism "was so little understood by some Theosophists, as to have led them into the belief that it thoroughly supported Darwinian evolution, and especially the theory of the descent of man from a pithecoid ancestor." She clarified that evolution in Esoteric Buddhism is "evolution as taught by Manu and Kapila" and "neither Occultism nor Theosophy has ever supported the wild theories of the present Darwinists — least of all the descent of man from an ape." (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 1. p. 186.) She wrote that "physical evolution" is an "exact science" which "prudently avoid[s] and ignor[es] the higher or spiritual evolution, which would force [... scientists] to confess the superiority of the ancient philosophers and psychologists over themselves." For her, evolution began with a demiurge "from pure spirit" and is "in all matter an impulse to take on a higher form." (Isis Unveiled. Vol. 1. xxxi–xxxii.) But man, for her, "is, in his outward form, simply an animal, hardly more perfect than his pithecoid-like ancestor of the third round. He is a living body, not a living being," because "an animal can only have direct consciousness, or instinct", but not "self-consciousness." (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 1. p. 234.) --BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, Mr flapdoodle's emphasis of the sentence "Thus the reason given for dividing humanity into superior and inferior races falls to the ground and becomes a fallacy." misrepresents what Blavatsky wrote. The surrounding pages change much of the meaning.

Blavatsky wrote that a purported manuscript was "extracted, and then rendered into a more comprehensible language, [...] from the archaic records," She posited that events which are historically unverifiable, i.e. "which were never written outside the human memory, [...] may have been preserved by constant transmission [...] with more truth and accuracy than inside any written document or record." While "the bulk of collective recollections" remain with a soul, they are not "perceived by our physical senses." She contended that a soul "tells those who believe in tradition more than in written History, that what is said below is all true, and relates to pre-historic facts." (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. pp. 423–424.)

In her purported manuscript's extraction from the "archaic record", people, described as " 'they of the Deva hue', the moon-like complexion, and 'they of the refulgent (golden) face' " migrated from their previous location "to the lands lying North and East". (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 425.)

She wrote that the Chinese, Mongols, Turanians, and other ancient nations descended from the people " 'of the yellow hue' " who "fled to [...] Central Asia." There "new races [...] lived and died until the separation of the nations," which occurred about "two-thirds of one million years" ago – although neither in the places described "by modern science, nor in the way" described by Aryanists, such as Max Müller, according to Blavatsky.

Her purported manuscript's extraction from the "archaic record" asserts that, "yellow-faced giants", all "with the same racial blood", in "forced confinement to one part of the world," did "branch off during a period of nearly 700,000 years into the most heterogeneous and diversified types" "without any fresh infusion or admixture". She compared her purported manuscript's extraction from the "archaic record" about "yellow-faced giants" to Africans. "The same is shown in Africa; nowhere does a more extraordinary variability of types exist, from black to almost white, from gigantic men to dwarfish races; and this only because of their forced isolation. The Africans have never left their continent for several hundred thousands of years. If to-morrow the continent of Europe were to disappear and other lands to re-emerge instead; and if the African tribes were to separate and scatter on the face of the earth, it is they who, in about a hundred thousand years hence, would form the bulk of the civilized nations. And it is the descendants of those of our highly cultured nations, who might have survived on some one island, without any means of crossing the new seas, that would fall back into a state of relative savagery. Thus the reason given for dividing humanity into superior and inferior races falls to the ground and becomes a fallacy." (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 425.)

She began next paragraph: "Such are the [...] facts [...] in the archaic records. [...] and comparing them with some [...] theories of Evolution, minus natural selection, these statements appear quite reasonable and logical. Thus [...] Aryans are the descendants of the yellow Adams," whereas "Semites — and the Jews along with them — are those of the red Adam; [...]" (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2. p. 426. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 12 (help)) The term "red Adam" is found only once in the second volume of The Secret Doctrine – only in this previous sentence – While Blavatsky's further explanation of the term "red Adam" is found in the first volume, "Ethnology, [...] finds it already impossible to account for the varieties in the human race, unless the hypothesis of the creation of several Adams be accepted. They speak of 'a white Adam and a black Adam, a red Adam and a yellow Adam'." (The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 1. pp. 323–324.)

References

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

galloping consumption is Tuberculosis

In the section "Childhood and youth", galloping consumption was not identified or linked. I have linked it to the page "Tuberculosis". Akld guy (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Biographical detail issues

First marriage

Is it three weeks or three months she was married? The paragraphs first states it's weeks, but later contradicts itself saying it's three months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillep2k (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy

Among the many unsatisfying attributes of the page is the "Genealogy" section. Of what possible consequence can the erratic references to what seem even in context unremarkable ancestors be?

Immediately following is the section "Childhood and youth," which maddeningly states "Because of her father’s profession ..." without revealing what that profession is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcor53 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Genealogy section is unfocused and very confusing – . I think it should be edited to just include the relatives that actually interacted with Blavatsky to make it less confusing. The speculative issues about her father and his ancestors should be moved into the existing article about him, Peter Hahn. The details about other members of House of Dolgorukov and Princess Helene Dolgoruki should be moved into their existing articles. I think this section could explain more about her father's profession and how it involved travel. Poorly cited content in this section may be based on incorrect information derived from pseudo-scientific "clairvoyant experiences" and not historical scholarship. According to Frank Reitemeyer, Peter Laur wrote that:

The pedigrees as given by Boris de Zirkoff in his Blavatsky: Collected Writings is described by Prof. Laur as highly selective, partly misleading and wrong. Here Helenas grandfather Alexis Gustavovich is placed in the same line as Fedeor Gustavovich and Karl Gustavovich as to indicate that they were brothers, which is not correct according to well documented sources. Also the family name Rottenstern-Hahn is an invention, as no such or similar family name ever existed. The same for the father's name Gustavovich. The correct names of Feodor and Karl have been identified as Friedrich August (Fedor Avgustovic) and Otto Karl (also: Carl August) (Avgustovic) von Hahn. The death date of Fedor was identified as 1851 in St. Petersburg; he had married Gerduta Wilhemine Augusta von Stryk in 1805. His brother Otto Karl von Hahn was born 1782 and his first marriage was to Marie Elisabeth Findeisen in 1803 in Wesenberg. There was no information to be found that there exists any relationship between Axel von Hahn (and therewith with Helena) and the two brothers Friedrich August and Otto Karl von Hahn. The author believes that this relationship had probably been constructed arbitrarily. For this the author gives Boris de Zirkoff the main responsibility who is described as being through his mother a great grand-son of Otto Karl von Hahn. It was de Zirkoff who was attributed with bringing forth most of the genealogical information, with additional information from Helena's sister Vera Jachontov or Zhelihovsky, which information Laur describes as a vivid fantasy. That de Zirkoff is labeled in theosophical circles as grand-nephew or even as nephew of Helena is at best only "cum grano salis" correct, according to the author.

According to Reitemeyer, Laur noted "that de Zirkoff gives no proof of a direct relationship between Helena and the von Hahn family, [...] while on the other hand clearly documented near relatives of Helena such as the numerous progenies of her father's siblings, [...] are ignored. With one of them, Nikolay, Helena had lived with in Paris in 1873." Also, according to Reitemeyer, Laur "did extensive research with members of the Hahn families" settled in the Baltic region, from Mecklenburg in Germany, "and consulted various of the families, and associations' genealogies, but he did not find any proof that Helena was related to these Hahn families. It is also often believed that the famous authoress Ida Gräfin Hahn-Hahn (1805-1880) was a 'cousin' of Helenas father or even a 'grand aunt' of Helena, which designation must not be understood literally, as there exists also no proof for that relationship. That some ancestors name was allegedly 'Rothenstern-Hahn' or 'Rottenstern-Hahn' is, according to the author, a claim based on 'clairvoyant experiences' (of Peter von Hahn together with his daughter Helena), and therefore, as Prof. Laur decides, not to be taken seriously."

References

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So, somebody who understands all this stuff--fix it. It ain't me, Babe. Kcor53 (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I propose we just get rid of the Genealogy section, as it has no real bearing on the main subject of the article. Drmab (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with deletion. Kcor53 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Childhood and youth

"Because of her father’s profession ..." which was what?? Kcor53 (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The deletion of the geneology section is an improvement, I feel. The "Biography" is likewise bloated, here is a cutting-down of the section currently called "Biography," which I would rename "Childhood and youth," which retains only the things which I think are of use to a reader of the Blavatsky page and eliminates a reference to the father's profession, which is not anywhere named. I would keep the illo of the mother and the Blavatsky drawing only. Some footnoted refs are gone, I have not renumbered any. I have not re-written for style. Readers wanting to find out the stuff I've cut have citations of the sources. I do not volunteer to make the edit myself.

[start] She was born on 31 July (12 August new style), 1831, at Yekaterinoslav[11] (from 1926 Dnipropetrovsk). Her parents were Colonel Peter von Hahn (Russian: Пётр Алексеевич Ган, 1798–1873) of the ancient von Hahn family of German nobility (German: Uradel) from Basedow (Mecklenburg)[12] and her mother Helena Andreevna von Hahn (Fadeyeva).[13]

A year after Blavatsky's birth, the family moved to Romankovo (now part of Dneprodzerzhinsk), and in 1835 they moved to Odessa, where Blavatsky's sister, Zhelihovsky, was born. Later the family lived in Tula and Kursk. In the spring of 1836 they arrived in St. Petersburg where they lived until May 1837. From St. Petersburg, Blavatsky, along with her sister, mother, and grandfather Andrei Mikhailovich Fadeyev moved to Astrakhan. In 1838, Blavatsky's mother moved with her daughters to Poltava, where Helena began to take dance lessons and her mother taught her to play the piano.[15]

In spring 1839, the family moved to Odessa. There Helena Andreevna found a governess for her children, who taught them English.[16] In November, Blavatsky's grandfather Andrei Mikhailovich was assigned governor of Saratov by Emperor Nikolai I. After this, Helena Andreevna and her children moved to live with him. In June 1840, at Saratov, Helena Andreevna's son Leonid was born. Blavatsky was then nine years old. Nadejda Fadeyeva, Blavatsky's aunt, wrote to Alfred Sinnett of her memory of her niece:

Helena Andreevna Hahn, Blavatsky's mother

Richard Davenport-Hines described her as "a petted, wayward, invalid child" who was a "beguiling story-teller", in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.[17]

At ten years old, she began to study German.

In 1841, the family returned to Ukraine. On 6 July 1842, Helena Andreevna Hahn, Helena's mother and at that time a well-known writer, died at the age of 28 of galloping consumption.

After her mother's death, Helena's grandfather Andrei Mikhailovich and grandmother Helena Pavlovna took the children to Saratov, where they had quite a different life. Fadeyev's house was visited by Saratov's intellectuals. A well-known historian, Kostomarov, and writer, Mary Zhukova, were among them.[22] Blavatsky's grandmother and three teachers were occupied with the children's upbringing and education, so she received a solid home education.[23][24]

Blavatsky's favorite place in the house was her grandmother's library, which Helena Pavlovna inherited from her father.[24][25] In this voluminous library, Blavatsky paid special attention to the books on medieval occultism.[c]

In 1847, the family had moved from Saratov to Tiflis (present-day Tbilisi, Georgia), where Andrei Mikhailovich was invited to work at the Council of Senior Governance in the Transcaucasia region.[27] Pisareva wrote that:

They who knew her … in youth remember with delight her inexhaustibly merry, cheerful, sparkling with wit. She liked jokes, teasing and to cause a commotion.[13]

In youth, Blavatsky had a high life, often was in society, danced at the balls and visited the parties. But when she reached 16, she experienced a sudden inner change, and she began to study the books from her great-grandfather's library more deeply.[28]

"Margarita and Mephistopheles". 1862. Drawing of Blavatsky made after visiting of the opera "Faustus"

Striving for full independence during the winter of 1848/1849 at Tiflis, she entered into a sham marriage with General Nikifor Vasilyevich Blavatsky, the much older vice-governor of Erevan, on 7 July 1848.[17] Soon after their wedding, she escaped from her husband and returned to her relatives.[36] Russian law at the time did not allow divorce.[37] Further, she was going to Odessa and sailed away from Poti to Kerch in the English sailboat "Commodore". Then she moved to Constantinople. There she met a Russian countess Kiseleva, and together they traveled over Egypt, Greece and Eastern Europe.[38] Blavatsky's assertions about her courageous adventures "seem partly authentic" to Davenport-Hines.[17]

[end]

Kcor53 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In Ostend

She lived for 10 months in Ostend, Belgium, and wrote the biggest part of The Secret Doctrine at the hotel Villa Nova, Van Iseghemlaan 10 and in the Weststraat where she moved in August. This house was newly constructed as the Van Iseghemlaan was build in the 1870's but the Villa does not exist anymore. Then she went to Weststraat 17 (now Adolf Buylstraat, it is now the "Crêmerie Geoges"), one of the main shopping streets of Ostend. In the newspaper La Saison d'Ostende we find her name back in the list of strangers on the 15th July 1886: Blavatsky H., rent. St Petersbourg, Villa Nova. She had her revelation to finish the book at the Weststraat (and so not to die) where the doctor and the lawyer came, ten days before her departure for London 1 May 1887. 213.118.76.126 12:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

---

Tulpa creator

Whats this about Blavatsky and a tulpa she apparently created? Anyone else ever heard of this? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't Blavatsky. That was Alexandra David-Neel. It is one of the best-known stories about tulpas. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Source distorted

McMahan does not state that Blavatsky revives Theravada Buddhism, yet he's given as a source for this information. In fact, McMahan states that Blavatsky and Olcott were involved in the development of Buddhist modernism, which took pains to distinguish between what Olcott called "true Buddhism" from the living tradition and practice of Buddhism in the east. McMaha explains that Olcott considered the living Buddhism of the masses to be corrupted, whereas Blavatsky claimed to be in touch with the true ancient source of Buddhism via telepathic communication with beings called the 'mahatmas.'

Olcott's 'Buddhist Catechism', according to McMahan, was used by Anagarika Dharmapala in a revival of Ceylonese Buddhism, but Dharmapala and Olcott split over Olcott's insistence on a universal religion over Buddhism. It's apparent that the revival of Ceylonese Buddhism was done by Dharmapala. I'm removing McMahan from the list of sources for this claim. Longchenpa (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I strongly suspect that the other two sources of this claim are misrepresented as well. Longchenpa (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Awful presentation of a bio article

This article is a biography article on Blavatsky, not an article on the religion she founded. I have merged the text that belongs to "Theosophy" into Theosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.140.207 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that this is a valid concern, and I am endeavouring to rectify it and ensure that the biographical content of this article is expanded and brought up to an acceptable level of quality using appropriate biographical publications as a template. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: much better with your edits. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @BoBoMisiu: I am hoping to achieve for this article that which I achieved for the Aleister Crowley article, i.e. reformat and expand it, using the appropriate biographical and scholarly literature, and then get it to GA status, and perhaps beyond. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Too much TS section for this bio

Much of the information in the "Theosophical Society" section either duplicates or would be better placed in its article, not in this bio. Encyclopedically speaking, the Theosophical Society and Blavatsky were not synonymous, even in her own lifetime, nor Besant later on. Qexigator (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, other posthumous attributions to Theosophy, such as Guido von List's doctrines, are no more relevant to this bio than to Olcott's or Besant's. The extent of the New Age Movement attribution to Theosophy is dubious, and, while it has a source, the relevance to this bio is unclear. Qexigator (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A very fair point. We must include information about Blavatsky's own personal beliefs and religious world-view (ideally in its own section), although that should not branch out into being a discussion of the Theosophical Society itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable revert

Please note that the second revert to my correction in the lead is not acceptable. If there is an objection, please state it for discussion.[1] Qexigator (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As the editor responsible for the revert in question, I must defend my actions, which are perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia norms and standards. We already have a discussion about that very same paragraph open, which Qexigator has so far ignored, despite being alerted to its existence. Without wishing to toot my own horn too much, I've just spent a lot of time revamping this article and improving it dramatically through the extensive and methodical addition of reliably sourced information, and I don't want to have to deal with disruptive editing, edit wars, or any of that stuff, because that's all a waste of time. So please, contribute to the discussion above, with myself and other editors, rather than acting alone and then complaining when your edits (the quality of which are certainly disputed) are reverted. Apologies if I'm being blunt, but it is quite late and I have had a long day. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You have not, however, given any reason for undoing my correction to my earlier edit. You are here being given an opportunity to say something constructive on that point. Please desist from practising disruptive editing and making groundless accusations. Qexigator (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Far from seeing myself as participating in disruptive editing, I undid your revisions because I truly thought that it was your edits that were disruptive. There is a talk page discussion about the first paragraph in the lede; you then are making changes to that lede paragraph without discussing the appropriateness of such revisions with those of us who are taking part in that discussion. That's disruptive, and runs very much counter to the communal ethos of Wikipedia. If you want to make the changes, discuss them first, please. That is my main concern with your edit in question. I further actually don't think that they benefit the article in any way, for they run counter to GA examples that we should be seeking to imitate (such as that at Aleister Crowley), but that is another matter, and one that we really should be debating at the aforementioned talk page discussion. Take your argument there, for that is where it belongs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that revealing response. You have been doing some good editing here, please do not spoil it by attitudinising. It would be better if you could allow others a little more courtesy who, like me, happen to disagree on certain points. There has been no disruptive editing on my part, and false accusations against another editor making bona fide npov revisions is not helpful, nor can be excused behind a shield such as "Wikipedia ethos". Shall we let this section close? Qexigator (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm not an antagonistic person, and I take no pleasure in arguing here. I did genuinely feel that your edits were disruptive, and I was acting accordingly; in turn, you thought that I was the disruptive one. You were acting in good faith, I can appreciate that, as was I, and we do share a common goal in improving this article. I'm happy to let this section close. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of forgery/plagiarism

It appears that there is a long history of accusations of plagiarisms and forgeries, not just the Coulomb affair. I wonder if a section discussing this is appropriate. It would have to be even-handed. HGilbert (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd advise against going for a whole section on the subject, as per some of the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism. I think it more appropriate were we to ensure that the accusations of forgery and plagiarism are raised at different points throughout the article. For instance, we already have some mention of them toward the start of the "Reception and legacy" section, although that clearly needs some expansion and tidying (which I hope to be getting on to in time). Further, it would be appropriate to mention prominent public criticisms within the biographical section; we already do that for the likes of the Coulomb Affair and claims that Isis Unveiled was heavily based upon earlier sources, although I know that Blavatsky was certainly publicly accused of fraudulence while moving within the American Spiritualist movement, which I'm not sure is something that currently appears in that section. Personally I feel that that approach would work better than a singular section on the accusations, which I fear would get pretty unwieldy soon enough and would end up duplicating information already found in other parts of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)