Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00779)

Dear Daniel
Thank you for sharing the heart and soul of your journey and the 
motivation for the work you do.
The integrity of your process as described should be an inspiration 
to all GENUINE truth seekers.
Sadly, for those concerned with vested interests, blind faith, sacred 
cows and any number of other motivations, these words may not reach 
or touch.
You have challenged, with considerable vigour and persistence at 
times, perhaps too much so for some. However, to use an Aussie 
expression, "your eye has always been on the ball", that of truth in 
reporting as best as you can discern it.
You say you are unconcerned with what others think of you and that 
this will not deter you from your work. Good! And be aware that there 
will be many, many more like me, perhaps mostly silent, who value 
your work beyond measure.
Forgive me if these words cause you discomfort or embarrassment. But 
sometimes certain things need to be said.
Very best wishes
Nigel Carey



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> Monday, May 9, 2005
> 
> --------,
> 
> Thanks for your two most recent emails.
> 
> Before I respond specifically to some of your
> comments in those emails, I want to try to give
> you just a little insight into my thinking about
> HPB's esoteric papers.
> 
> The reality of the situation is that in 1897 
> Mrs. Annie Besant published the BULK...yes the great BULK of HPB's 
> 3 instructions and Inner Group teachings in the third volume of
> THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> 
> This volume has been reprinted probably 6 or 7 times
> in the last 108 years. Even published in the 1980s as
> a Quest Book by Wheaton TPH.
> 
> Therefore during these 108 years probably thousands
> of readers, inquirers, seekers and Theosophical students
> have read these esoteric papers of Madame Blavatsky in this
> third volume of the SD.
> 
> And probably the vast majority of readers and students
> who were introduced to this material in this third volume
> had no idea that these were possibly still private and confidential
> papers that should never have been published.
> 
> Read Annie Besant's note about these
> papers to be found on page 434 of the third volume:
> 
> "Papers I. II. III. of the following were written by H.P.B and 
> were circulated privately during her lifetime, but they were 
> written with the idea that they would be published after a time. 
> . . . . The 'Notes of some Oral Teaching' were written down by 
> some of her pupils and were partially corrected by her, 
> but no attempt has been made to relieve them of their 
> fragmentary character. She had intended to make them 
> the basis for written papers similar to the first three, 
> but her failing health rendered this impossible, and 
> they are published with her consent, the time for restricting 
> them to a limited circle having expired."
> 
> Notice her words: "...they are published with her [HPB's] consent."
> 
> I'm not asking YOU to believe what Mrs. Besant said. But my
> point is that thousands of readers have probably read these words
> of Mrs. Besant and simply assumed they were true. 
> 
> Without knowing more about the inner history of the Esoteric 
School, 
> how would any of the readers be in a position to know whether Mrs. 
> Besant was telling the truth or not???
> 
> But the end result is that many very serious students of Madame
> Blavatsky's teachings have found a great deal of food for thought, 
> insight and inspiration in those teachings as given in Vol. III of 
> the SD.
> 
> More than 25 years ago I remember studying this material and I 
> believe I learned a great deal and even had a few of those insights 
> for myself.
> 
> It was only LATER as I delved more deeply into the history of the
> Theosophical movement that I discovered that some Theosophical 
> students questioned Mrs. Besant's assurances, etc. etc.
> 
> So if every student and reader who ever read and studied the 
> esoteric papers as given in Vol. III had also found out later that 
> possibly these papers were not suppose to be ever published, what 
> pray tell should they do?
> 
> Are they suppose to erase from their minds all the study and 
insight 
> and inspiration that they may have gained from these pages in 
Volume 
> III?
> 
> How and why do you close the barn door after all the horses have 
> already run away?
> 
> The bottom line is that the papers are out there and have been in 
> the public domain for 108 years.
> 
> Probably somewhere in the world as I type these words, some 
inquirer 
> or new student has purchased a copy of this volume III and is 
> starting to read these esoteric papers of HPB's.
> 
> Moving on.
> 
> Later I also discovered allegations that Mrs. Besant had edited
> and changed some of the text of these esoteric papers. Since I 
> believed these papers were important and part of Mme. Blavatsky's
> literary heritage, I wanted to know more about these allegations of
> tampering and editing. 
> 
> Why? I thought if Mrs. Besant has tampered with these papers then 
> maybe some of my own understanding and insight may be wrong because
> of this changing/editing of words which may also change HPB's 
> original meaning.
> 
> Naturally I wanted to see the originals so that I would not be 
> laboring under misimpressions based on Mrs. Besant's alleged 
editing.
> 
> If you had been in my shoes, you may have thought differently. I 
> don't know but my intent was to ascertain and preserve the unedited 
> versions of these papers so that other sincere, serious students 
> might also correct any misunderstandings they had.
> 
> Now after many years I have published THE ESOTERIC PAPERS OF MADAME 
> BLAVATSKy.
> 
> See: http://blavatskyarchives.com/hpbesotericpapers.htm
> 
> Again the uppermost thought in my mind has been to set the record 
> straight, to preserve for posterity the original, unedited versions 
> of HPB's estoric papers. If this creates negative karma, then I 
will 
> bear with it for in the long run I think it is productive of much 
> good.....
> 
> As time went on, I also discovered that after HPB's death all sorts 
> of claims have been made by Judge, Besant, Leadbeater and many, 
many 
> other individuals about HPB's teachings and also claims of further 
> communication with the dead HPB and with HPB's adept teachers. 
> 
> See a list of some of those claimants at:
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm#six
> 
> All these claims and counterclaims constitute a morass that every 
> new student and inquirers has to face and deal with IF they are 
even 
> aware of some if not all of these conflicting claims.
> 
> As I studied more deeply I was fortunate to find more material, for 
> example, the Wurzburg manuscript of the SD, that is, the original 
> volumes I and II and the study of this manuscript threw a 
floodlight 
> on the origins of Volume III of the SD.
> 
> See some of my conclusions at:
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/sdiiipt1.htm
> 
> or my other discovery as detailed at:
> Missing "Transactions" by H.P. Blavatsky Discovered
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/caldwellunpublavmat.htm
> 
> As my studies progressed, it dawned on me that most students, even 
> serious students, of Madame Blavatsky's writings and teachings and 
> life labor under many handicaps and hindrances.
> 
> Much of the relevant material is scattered all over and most 
> students simply do have have easy access if any access to reams of 
> relevant documents.
> 
> This is why I created the Blavatsky Archives on the WWW. I wanted 
> to share all of this material that I had been fortunate enough to 
> find and track down with other sincere students. You can see some 
> of this material online at:
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/compitems2.htm
> 
> And I have thousand of other documents which I hope in time will 
> also be put online for students.
> 
> Starting in the early seventies I was a student of the Mahatma 
> Letters to A.P. Sinnett. In studying and researching these 
> remarkable letters, I found tons of relevant material that 
> illuminated these letters.
> 
> Having a background in psychology and parapsychology, these Mahatma 
> letters from KH on life after death opened up whole new vistas and 
> insights for me.
> 
> And at the same time I was able to discover more relevants letters 
> from the Masters which solve all sorts of mysteries, etc. 
> surrounding the early days of Theosophy. Some of this material I 
> have published at:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/hollowayml.htm
> 
> As the years have gone by and more and more of this material has 
> come my way I have felt it a DUTY to preserve this material and to 
> make it available to the public in the hope that sincere and 
serious 
> students will find this material helpful as they try to discover 
> genuine theosophy as opposed to all the pseudo-Theosophy
> out there to confuse and mislead.
> 
> In the last year to my surprise I discovered more than a dozen 
> original letters from the Masters KH and M. I feel a duty to 
> preserve and eventually put them in the public domain.
> 
> If they have helped me to some extent, then I should share them 
with 
> others.
> 
> In the last year I was able to provide Kessinger Publishing with 
> original copies of the first 14 volumes of THE THEOSOPHIST and also 
> certain volumes of LUCIFER. I was able to make a deal with 
> Kessinger to publish all these volumes. Now serious students of 
> Blavatsky can read her articles unedited and uncensored just
> as she published them in her magazines. This project has cost me 
> several thousand dollars but I was so happy that this printing 
> project could be done.
> 
> Along the way I have also discovered many unfortunate things such 
as 
> that the Collected Writings series of HPB articles by Boris de 
> Zirkoff contained editing of HPB's words. Although these Collected 
> Writings are quite useful having amassed in 14 volumes most of 
HPB's 
> volumious article, de Zirkoff's editing was unfortunate. This 
> discovery motivated me to have the original volumes of THE 
> THEOSOPHIST and Lucifer phototgraphically reprinted. 
> 
> I also discovered that the Theosophy Company's editions of THE 
VOICE 
> OF THE SILENCE and MODERN PANARION contains hundreds of changes 
from 
> HPB's originals and yet there was no indicaton in these reprints by 
> the Theosophy Company that these volumes had been edited, in some 
> cases heavily edited. I have also written about this.
> 
> I also discovered that many of so-called scholars who write books 
on 
> Blavatsky and her Masters do NOT always give readers a fair and 
> balanced look.
> 
> See my papers on Paul Johnson's books for examples of this:
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnson.htm
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonparanormal3.htm
> 
> I also rescued from near oblivion the original text of Margaret 
> Thomas' study of Leadbeater's and Besant's Neo-Theosophy.
> 
> See:
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/index.htm
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/tontitlepage.pdf
> 
> Anand whom you have mentioned in one of your previous emails to me 
> has NOT been happy with my publication of the Thomas material. 
You 
> should see some of his emails to me!
> 
> I have also been able to publish rare material on:
> 
> William Q. Judge and Katherine A. Tingley:
> An Analysis of the Controversy Surrounding 
> W.Q. Judge's Diary Entries about "Promise" and the Dead H.P.B. 
> including Material on the Close Relationship between Mr. Judge and 
> Mrs. Tingley
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokeswqjktcon.htm
> 
> Many Theosophical students especially some Judge and ULT students 
> have also NOT been happy with me for publishing all this material 
> especially some of the rare material written by Mr. Judge.
> 
> But if it makes them think, challenges their own assumptions and 
> views, then all the negative emails I have received on the subject 
> was worth it!
> 
> I have rambled on but all the above may help you to understand 
where 
> I am coming from.
> 
> Now to your latest email.
> 
> You write:
> 
> "The problem here is that you think that by adding together letters 
> and extracts, which should not be in your hands to begin with, that 
> you have proved something."
> 
> I focus on your words:
> 
> "...letters and extracts, which should not be in your
> hands to begin with...."
> 
> Well, how do you KNOW that they should not be in my hands?
> This may be your sincere opinion but you really do NOT know anything
> about how these letters and extracts came my way, etc.
> 
> "...should not...." This reminds me of some of the doctrinaire 
> statements made for example by Anand.
> 
> And yes I do believe that these letters and extracts do prove 
> certain things. At least I offer evidence and I have seen little 
if 
> any of that in what you have provided me.
> 
> You also write:
> 
> "I just thought that since you seemed intent on dealing with Anand, 
> and the support of HPB, that you would be able to understand my 
> reasoning, but I was mistaken."
> 
> Well I believe that I have at least partially understood your 
> reasoning but that does NOT mean I have to agree with it, does it? 
> And to be truthful you have written very little about your 
reasoning 
> on this matter. So if I do not understand it fully part of the
> reason may be that you have not clearly elucidated all of your 
> reasoning.
> 
> You go on:
> 
> "Now I see that your method is to meet any such
> complaint as mine, not with reason, but with more and
> more publishing of the very thing objected to, as if
> doing that proves anything but your tenacity to your
> mind set."
> 
> No doubt, no doubt, I have a "mind set" but are you telling
> me that you do not have one also? Or that you are free of
> the tenacity of your mind set?
> 
> I constantly try to remind myself that I may not see the whole 
> picture, that I may be seriously mistaken on this that or the 
> other. And I believe that I am open to new points of view, new 
> evidence, etc.
> 
> Are you?
> 
> I don't mean to be unkind but I intend to be frank and 
> straightforward: many of your statements seem very similar in tone 
> to those of Anand Gholap. He knows and anyone who thinks 
> differently is wrong. I may be mistaken but I detect that same 
tone 
> in your emails. Plus also in your words almost a whiff of 
> "irritation." 
> 
> And my publishing of certain extracts from the esoteric papers of 
> HPB was made in the hope that you would see where I was coming 
> from...that you might gather what my reasoning was.
> 
> Then to your comment which reads:
> 
> "Finally, To the diserning mind, Mr Corsbie's authority to do what 
> he has done, is obviously something you are in no position to 
> understand."
> 
> I assume you believe that you are one of those with a "discerning 
> mind" and obviously I am not!
> 
> But this statement of yours is almost identical to some of the 
> responses I have received over the years from indignant 
> Leadbeaterites and Baileyites, etc. who have not liked my 
> questioning of their favorite author and hero.
> 
> One could simply reword what you have written and it could have 
been 
> written by those individuals:
> 
> "To the discerning mind, Leadbeater's authority to do what he has 
> done, is obviously something you are in no position to understand."
> 
> or 
> 
> "To the discerning mind, Bailey's authority to do what he has 
> done, is obviously something you are in no position to understand."
> 
> How do you KNOW what I am able to understand or not?? 
> 
> In my main archives in Oceanside, California I have 2 drawers of a 
> filing cabinet of Mr. Crosbie's papers, etc. If I have any 
> understanding or if I will have any understanding of Mr. Crosbie's 
> authority etc, it will be based on the historical record which 
> includes many letters actually written by Mr. Crosbie. What is 
your 
> understanding based on?
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you will not share that with me so it is but 
> a rhetorical question.
> 
> And I do thank you for deciding to write to me again. And I wish
> that we could indeed be allies but you apparently want it all on 
your
> terms and seem unwilling to compromise or to tolerate a different 
> point of view. 
> 
> But your writing to me has been a sign to me to at last publish in 
a 
> more detailed form the article titled:
> 
> "Did Robert Crosbie Break the Seventh Clause of His Solemn Pledge?"
> 
> which I will work on as time permits....
> 
> And so I ask you again to seriously ponder on these questions:
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> It is clear that Blavatsky & Judge issued the instructions at the
> direction of the Masters.
> 
> But who gave the permission to Crosbie in 1909 that he could reprint
> the esoteric instructions and allow new people to have access to
> this esoteric material?
> 
> Who gave Mr. Crosbie the authority or right to disregard his
> original pledges & offer these instructions to new students?
> 
> Did Mr Crosbie violate his original pledges by allowing other people
> to have copies of Blavatsky's & Judge's esoteric instructions?
> 
> Relevant to this, I quote the following:
> 
> "Mr John Garrigues et al in one of the ULT histories of Modern
> Theosophy did not hesitate to attack Mrs Annie Besant on the very
> same issue.
> 
> "Read Mr Garrigues' words-----
> 
> 'In Mrs. Besant's 'Third Volume' [of The Secret Doctrine, 1897] are
> incorporated the private papers originally issued by H.P.B. to the
> E.S., and in reprinting these Mrs. Besant . . . broke the seventh
> clause of her solemn pledge as a member of the Esoteric
> School. . . .' The Theosophical Movement 1875-1925, pages 571-572.
> 
> "If Mrs Besant was guilty of what Mr Garrigues accused her, then is
> it not equally fair to at least pose the question-----
> 
> "Did not Mr Robert Crosbie violate his original 'solemn' E.S. pledge
> by reissuing (through the DES) Blavatsky's esoteric instructions to
> new students under an oath of secrecy?
> 
> "If Mrs Besant was guilty of breaking her pledge, why not also Mr
> Crosbie?"
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> But I assume you need not ponder more deeply since you already 
> believe you know the truth.
> 
> Thanks for writing and I wish we could work more closely together 
> since I assume we are both sincere and serious students of Madame 
> Blavatksy's writing.
> 
> Daniel