Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00210)

June 9 2005

Dear Eldon:

Is there much use in allowing this group to be deluged with misinformation
(not to say insults to HPB) from this "individual: " -- ANAND GHOLAP --

Is it a real person, or a "nom-de-plume?" Has anyone ever seen or heard of
him in the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY ? Is he in good standing? 

What I find extraordinary in what he is alleged to write, is the complete
lack of sensitivity as well as an apparent unbalance in terms of
discrimination, logic and honest, plain goodwill.

How far does brotherhood extend? Have we tolerated enough? 

Since he states that he has established his own "group" why invade yours /
ours?  

The direct attacks on Mme. Blavatsky, on THEOSOPHY and on the Masters of
Wisdom are surely not a part of real THEOSOPHY ? At least to me, and from
the many postings and rebuttals that others send in, I see that most
thoughtful contributors are of the same opinion.  

I can also see that research and the exchange of information is impeded in
both time and content by this kind of contribution. How many months have we
had of it ? 


Best wishes,

Dallas

==============================================
 

Sample 1:  


-----Original Message-----
From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bart Lidofsky
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:13 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Blavatsky's extremely wrong statement

Anand Gholap wrote:
>>	Of course it is. It might not be proof, but it certainly is 
>> evidence.
> 
> Certainly it is evidence of innocence. What do you say.

I say that I probably should have stopped taking you seriously weeks
ago.

Bart

==============================================

Sample 2

If he actually backed up his statements with logic it wouldn't be a
problem. I like hearing opposing viewpoints and perspectives (you will
even see me argue for things I don't agree upon just to get more of a
story), but when I hear, "Blavatsky is bad because she smoked," all
the time, it sounds like someone's ineffectually grasping for straws.

It doesn't sound like cause for a ban though.

-Mark H.

On 6/9/05, Vladimir <forums@sova.us> wrote:
Thursday, June 9, 2005, 7:27:26 PM, Daniel wrote:
 
One subscriber on this list has repeatedly
told us that Blavatsky students are dogmatic,
close-minded fundamentalists who refuse to look
outside Blavatsky's writings, but as we have seen
on this forum that same subscriber
has time and time again either ignored facts,
evidence and documents or has made vague (sometimes
almost irrational) statements trying to dismiss
various pieces of evidence, etc.

I can see two most obvious ways to treat such an individual here:
 
1. Ignore his posts altogether (mail filters are particularly good at
it).
 
2. Detach him from the list. I suppose, there is a moderator somewhere
around here...
 
Vladimir
===============================================

SAMPLE 3

-----------------------------

"Anand, are you telling us that you are a better judge of these 
things than Master K.H.?

"Please read again the above statement by Master K.H. This
statement 
shows that the Master was VERY involved in the production of this 
book. So are you also blaming the Master for the production of such 
a "confusing", "misleading" book ???? "

-----------------------------

Anand, WHY did the Mahatmas commission Blavatsky to write THE SECRET
DOCTRINE, THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, etc, etc. when her writings would be
CONFUSING and 
creating all the HAVOC you allege?

You say you see all the damage that was caused by her writings. So why were
the Mahatmas
LESS PERCEPTIVE than you?

You have cited documents showing that Leadbeater
received letters from Master Koot Hoomi in 1884.

Why didn't the Master "see" that Leadbeater was
the kind of writer they NEEDED and have him
either write THE SECRET DOCTRINE or at least
work closely with Madame Blavatsky to make THE
SECRET DOCTRINE more readable???

This would have kept thousands of readers from
being "damaged" by reading THE SECRET DOCTRINE.

FURTHERMORE, consider what Master Koot Hoomi wrote:

"I have also noted, your thoughts about the 'Secret Doctrine.' Be
assured that what she [HPB] has not annotated from scientific and
other works, we have given or suggested to her. Every mistake or
erroneous notion, corrected and explained by her from the works of
other theosophists was corrected by me, or under my instruction. It
is a more valuable work than its predecessor, an epitome of occult
truths that will make it a source of information and instruction for
the earnest student for long years to come. . . ." Letters from the
Masters of the Wisdom, Series I, p. 47

Why is the Master recommending THE SECRET DOCTRINE as "a source
of information and instruction for the earnest student for long 
years to come" if all you say about THE SECRET DOCTRINE is true?  
You say you couldn't recommend the same book.

Anand, are you telling us that you are a better judge of these 
things than Master K.H.?

Please read again the above statement by Master K.H. This statement 
shows that the Master was VERY involved in the production of this 
book. So are you also blaming the Master for the production of such 
a "confusing", "misleading" book????

If your thesis is true, then some of the implications above must be 
considered.

Anyway, some food for thought.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc

==============================================


SAMPLE 4


Anand ignores the following 5 pieces of evidence 
and what they indicate.  

I think this should be a "warning" to all readers 
to be wary of other assertions by Anand.

Anand should remember that THERE IS NO RELIGION 
(BELIEF, OPINION) HIGHER THAN TRUTH.

=================================================

I present below a summary of the historical
records/evidence that Gregory Tillett has
presented showing Leadbeater was born in 1854:


(1) British marriage records indicate that
Leadbeater's parents were married on May 26, 1853.


(2) Leadbeater's own birth record indicates that he
was born on February 16, 1854.


[NOTE: Connecting the facts presented in (1) and (2),
one can see that Leadbeater was born about 9 months
after his parents were married. Not surprising in
light of known facts about human reproduction.]

(3) Leadbeater's mother gave his age [confirming the 1854 birth date]
when registering her husband's death.


(4) In the Anglican diocesan records, Leadbeater gave his birth date
[1854] on his application for ordination in the Church of England


(5) In the census return submitted by Leadbeater in 1881, he stated
as Head of the Household that his age was 27 (i.e. born in 1854),


I would suggest that these FIVE historical records give us THE MEANS
to ascertain what year Leadbeater was born.

It is possible that one record might contain some kind of error or 
mistake but to suggest or maintain that 5 SEPARATE records (made 
years apart)are ALL wrong, INCLUDING records completed by Leadbeater 
and his mother, is, to say the least, not a rational and sensible 
hypothesis.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc

=========================================