Theos-Talk Archives (December 2005 Message tt00344)

I see that Mr. Carlos Aveline has made additional
comments about my book, etc. in several recent issues
of the AQUARIAN THEOSOPHIST. I think some of these
comments deserve to be replied to especially since
some of Aveline's comments are quite misleading and
give a false impression to readers of the AT.

Take this statement by Mr. Aveline:

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

What is abstract justice in such a case as the clever publication in 
recent years by Mr. John Algeo and by Mr. Daniel Caldwell of the old 
and proven lies fabricated in the 19th century by Mr. Vsevolod 
Solovyov, and by the Coulombs — without even indicating that the 
documents were entirely false?" The Aquarian Theosophist, Vol. VI, 
#2 Supplement December 17, 2005 Page 11

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

Putting aside what Aveline writes about Dr. Algeo, FOCUS on that 
part of his statement which I assume must apply to me: 

"....the clever publication in recent years by . . . Mr. Daniel 
Caldwell of the old and proven lies fabricated in the 19th 
century ... by the Coulombs — without even indicating that the 
documents were entirely false?"

Now I ask the reader is this statement true and accurate, especially 
the part which reads:

"....without even indicating that the documents were entirely 
false....?

It would appear that Mr. Aveline has either forgotten or is STILL 
ignoring what I actually wrote in THE ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME 
BLAVATSKY and which I repeated in the December issue of THE AQUARIAN 
THEOSOPHIST. I quote them once again hoping that at least your 
readers will see where I stand on the issue and will see that Mr. 
Aveline's statement is misleading and (to use his own word) clever.  
Here are my words:

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

p. 205 "Emma Coulomb later claimed that she collaborated with HPB at 
Adyar, as she had earlier in Bombay, in producing false phenomena, 
however her descriptions of what she did are not consistent with the 
observations of others, who witnessed the phenomena, both Indian and 
Westerners, as some of the following selections demonstrate." 

p. 263: "Meanwhile, a vicious attack on Blavatsky by two of her 
staff members at Adyar, Alexis and Emma Coulomb, was rapidly 
building up…. She wished to sue the couple, already dismissed from 
Adyar for their gross libel concerning her supposedly fraudulent 
production of psychic phenomena…." 

p. 264: "The Coulomb attack, as was later evident, had no solid 
foundation whatsoever. It was based on forged and partially forged 
letters, purporting to have been written by H. P. Blavatsky, with 
instructions to arrange fraudulent psychic phenomena of various 
kinds." 

p. 264: "In 1963, Adlai Waterman…. refuted Hodgson's contentions 
against Madame Blavatsky…. Another refutation of some of Hodgson's 
charges against HPB is Vernon Harrison's article, J'Accuse: An 
Examination of the Hodgson Report of 1885," published in The Journal 
of the Society for Psychical Research, London, April 1986, pp. 286-
310…. 

[Readers of the AT should understand that many of Hodgson's 
contentions were based on what Madame Coulomb had told him. DHC.]

p. 406: "In May 1884, the Coulomb couple were expelled from the 
Theosophical Society for theft, attempted extortion and slander…." 

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

And as I stated previously, I quoted Madame Coulomb's own words in 
my book so readers could read these statements for themselves, 
compare them with what other people stated and make up their minds 
for themselves. Apparently, Mr. Aveline has already made up his mind 
in this matter and that is just fine. But it would appear that he 
doesn't want other people to read something for themselves and come 
to their own conclusions.

I also notice Mr. Aveline mentions Mr. Carrithers and his research 
and apparently holds them in high regard. Yet since I personally 
knew Mr. Carrithers and was the executor of his literary estate, I 
know from first hand knowledge that Mr. Carrithers would have wanted 
each inquirer and student to read whatever he thinks is proper, 
think for himself and come to his own conclusions. Notice what Mr. 
Carrithers says in his book OBITUARY: The Hodgson Report on Madame 
Blavatsky:

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

It is safe to calculate that for every ten thousand persons who have 
heard and believe that Richard Hodgson "exposed" H.P. Blavatsky as a 
fraud and imposter, not more than one has read his "expose;" and, 
that for every thousand of his readers, hardly one has ever seen 
Emma Coulomb's pamphlet. And yet, by logic and every rule of common 
sense, the latter document takes precedence over all others in 
standing at the very heart of the controversy raised by the 
Coulombs, comprising as it does the firsthand unadulterated 
testimony of the chief accusers, together with documentary "proofs" 
adduced for their claims. Yet, strange to say, practically no 
attention was paid to THIS PRICELESS PAMPHLET - least of all by 
indignant Theosophists who put no stock in what Mme. Coulomb might 
have to say! -, not until, that is, the appearance in 1937 of Mrs. 
Hastings' booklet, Defence of Madame Blavatsky (Volume II) 
The "Coulomb Pamphlet". Unfortunately, Mrs. Hastings did not live 
to complete her promising study of the case. [Caps added. DHC]

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Dr. Hodgson himself seems 
to have had very great reluctance to make, by quotation, any use 
whatsoever of Mme. Coulomb's printed (prior) explanations. The 
reason for this odd behavior on his part, with respect to the 
testimony of his chief witness, becomes readily apparent once we 
examine the major charges brought against Mme. Blavatsky by Dr. 
Hodgson, and now, for the first time, compare his allegations detail-
by-detail against original, earlier-published claims of Mme. Coulomb 
herself. "

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

I remember Mr. Carrithers telling me how he searched a long time for 
a copy of the Coulomb pamphlet because he wanted to read the charges 
for himself and not be like those" indignant Theosophists who put no 
stock in what Mme. Coulomb might have to say!" 

Read the entire section from Mr. Carrither's pen at:  
http://blavatskyfoundation.org/obituint.htm

Instead Mr. Aveline apparently wants Theosophical inquirers and 
students to be like ostriches and put their heads in the sand!

Notice how Madame Blavatsky dealt with the new inquirer Mrs. Annie 
Besant. Mrs. Besant wrote in 1893:

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

And so it came to pass that I went again to Lansdowne Road to ask 
about the Theosophical Society. H.P. Blavatsky looked at me 
piercingly for a moment. "Have you read the report about me of the 
Society for Psychical Research?" "No; I never heard of it, so far as 
I know." "Go and read it, and if, after reading it, you come back—
well." And nothing more would she say on the subject, but branched 
off to her experiences in many lands. 

I borrowed a copy of the Report, read and re-read it. Quickly I saw 
how slender was the foundation on which the imposing structure was 
built. The continual assumptions on which conclusions were based; 
the incredible character of the allegations; and—most damning fact 
of all—the foul source from which the evidence was derived. 
Everything turned on the veracity of the Coulombs, and they were 
self-stamped as partners in the alleged frauds. Could I put such 
against the frank, fearless nature that I had caught a glimpse of, 
against the proud fiery truthfulness that shone at me from the 
clear, blue eyes, honest and fearless as those of a noble child? Was 
the writer of "The Secret Doctrine" this miserable impostor, this 
accomplice of tricksters, this foul and loathsome deceiver, this 
conjuror with trap-doors and sliding panels? I laughed aloud at the 
absurdity and flung the Report aside with the righteous scorn of an 
honest nature that knew its own kin when it met them, and shrank 
from the foulness and baseness of a lie. The next day saw me at the 
Theosophical Publishing Company's office at 7, Duke Street, Adelphi, 
where Countess Wachtmeister—one of the lealest of H.P.B.'s friends—
was at work, and I signed an application to be admitted as fellow of 
the Theosophical Society. 

On receiving my diploma I betook myself to Lansdowne Road, where I 
found H.P.B. alone. I went over to her, bent down and kissed her, 
but said no word. "You have joined the Society?" "Yes." "You have 
read the report?" "Yes." "Well?" I knelt down before her and clasped 
her hands in mine, looking straight into her eyes. "My answer is, 
will you accept me as your pupil, and give me the honour of 
proclaiming you my teacher in the face of the world?" Her stern, set 
face softened, the unwonted gleam of tears sprang to her eyes; then, 
with a dignity more than regal, she placed her hand upon my 
head. "You are a noble woman. May Master bless you." 

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

That is the Madame Blavatsky I admire....

Yet when I quote only several pages from Hodgson's Report, Mr. 
Aveline (and Mr. Jerome Wheeler) conjure up in their fertile 
imaginations all sorts of negative things about me! I guess it makes 
for exciting reading.....

Moving on.

In Aveline's reply to my comments, he writes:

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

"Caldwell thinks Solovyov's text on pages 270-72 of The Esoteric 
World of Madame Blavatsky does not attack HPB. Yet the last 
paragraph of the text clearly implies that the occult phenomena 
which Solovyov has 'described' as being done in connection with HPB 
are false."

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

Well let us actually see what Mr. Solovyov wrote. The last four 
paragraphs read:

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

Next morning, on going with Miss [de Glinka] to Madame Blavatsky, 
the first thing she said to us 
with an enigmatical smile was "Well! How have you passed the 
night?" "Very well," I replied and 
I added, "Haven't you anything to tell me?" "No," she replied, "I 
only know that the Master was 
with you with one of his pupils."

That same evening, Mr. Olcott found in his pocket a little note, 
that all the Theosophists said was 
in the handwriting of M: "Certainly I was there, but who can open 
the eyes of him who will not see."

This was the reply to my doubts, because all the day I had been 
trying to persuade myself that it 
was only a hallucination, and this made Madame Blavatsky angry.

I should say that on my return to Paris, where I am now, my 
hallucinations and the strange happenings 
that surrounded me, have completely stopped.

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

These words of Solovyov were written in late 1884. My research 
indicates that at this time Mr. Solovyov may have had "doubts" but 
he had not turned against H.P.B. at this time. This would happen 
many months later. Is Mr. Aveline telling us that it is wrong to 
have doubts? If interested readers go and read the whole excerpt of 
Mr. Solovyov's which appears in my book [ 
http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/books/esotericworld/chapter14/i
ndex.html ] I think some might agree with me that the details of the 
case as given by Mr. Solovyov show that the experiences Mr. Solovyov 
had were genuine but that he had some honest doubts. Apparently no 
doubts are allowed in Mr. Aveline's "universe or reality".

Then Mr. Aveline adds some additional comments:

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

"Today, Caldwell says Solovyov did not lie about HPB in this or that 
particular text. Will Caldwell openly confess, in future, that in 
his opinion Solovyov was right in everything he wrote? Will he ever 
have the moral courage to defend the idea that Solovyov is an 
acceptable source of historical data and documents, about the 
history of the esoteric movement? If so, on what grounds? Or — will 
he go on with the same policy of insinuations, "maybes" and 
innuendos?"

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

In my book, my biographical note on Solovyov reads on p. 415: "At 
first, relations between the two were friendly but Solovyov turned 
against HPB and wrote a book….in which he attempted to portray HPB 
as a fraud."

In other words, in 1884 when he wrote the above account, he was not 
lying, but later yes, I believe he lied. But that does not mean 
that Solovyov's book does NOT contain valuable historical material 
and documents. No, it just means you must read the book with some 
discrimination. Read Beatrice Hasting's analysis of Solovyov's 
book, for example, to get a handle on the Solovyov material. Or 
read the two chapters in K.F. Vania's book on Mr. Solovyov. It is 
actually possible to do enough historical research so that you find 
yourself in a position to be able to judge when the witness (in this 
case, Solovyov) is lying and when he is telling the truth. But I 
assume Mr. Aveline wants readers to avoid even reading Solovyov book.

Mr. Aveline's whole approach in many of his articles and letters 
reminds me of how some "orthodox" Christians respond to anything 
that might challenge or question their faith....

Again moving on.

Mr. Aveline writes:

"With regard to the publication done by the Edmonton Theosophical 
Society — it was made in a correct way and it has nothing to do 
whatsoever with Mr. Caldwell's 'editorial' work."

Is this an adequate reply to my initial inquiry??? Aveline 
states: "...it was made in a correct way...." Notice that Mr. 
Aveline doesn't expand on what he means by "correct." I guess he 
just wants us to naively believe him when he says it is "correct".  
Mr. Aveline said it, therefore it must be true??? It appears to me 
that Mr. Aveline is totally ignoring the major points I brought up 
which read as follows:

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

Trying to understand Mr. Aveline's "reasoning" in this matter, I 
wonder if his above comments about "beyond the limits of absurdity" 
and the creation of karma ("bad" I assume) would ALSO apply to a 
1995 photocopied "reproduction" of Emma Coulomb's pamphlet?? 

In 1995, the Edmonton Theosophical Society (who is also the 
publisher of Fohat where similar adverse comments by Aveline have 
appeared about my book) REPRINTED the ENTIRE 112 pages of Madame 
Coulomb's "disgusting" (to use Aveline's (description) pamphlet. I 
only reprinted 3 or 4 pages of the Coulomb pamphlet in my book!:) 

So, would Mr. Aveline ALSO conclude that the "reproduction [of the 
Coulomb pamphlet] by a Publishing House [ETS of Canada] which calls 
itself `Theosophical' is something which surpasses and goes 
relatively far beyond the limits of absurdity…."???? 

If Mr. Aveline can make the kind of comments he has about the 
Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, Illinois, USA, is he also 
willing to castigate the Edmonton Theosophical Society for similar 
if not worse actions?? 

These are just some of the questions and thoughts that came to me as 
I seriously pondered on what Mr. Aveline's statements and reasoning 
actually mean. 

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

Mr. Aveline's reasoning on this matter remains a mystery and I 
assume he also wants it to remain so to the readers of this 
magazine.  

Now one more quote from Mr. Aveline, and I will be done.

He writes:

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

"In the last days of October 2005, I came to know that Mr. Daniel 
Caldwell, after divulging libels and innuendos against HPB and 
William Q. Judge, now openly attacks Robert Crosbie. The Aquarian 
Theosophist, Vol. VI, #2 Supplement December 17, 2005 Page 36 

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

I see that Mr. Aveline is again indulging in vague assertions. 

I ask Mr. Aveline point blank:

Please cite chapter and verse where I have "divulged" libels and 
innuendoes against William Q. Judge. Please show me and the readers 
what misstatements I have made against Mr. Judge. And please show 
us what the true facts are....

When Mr. Aveline writes that I now openly attack Robert Crosbie, I 
ask him to state exactly what misstatements I have made against Mr. 
Crosbie. And please state the "truth" which you suggest I have 
not given.

Vague remarks such as the above made by Mr. Aveline are totally 
worthless and do not help anyone who is seeking for the truth in 
these matters.

To reply to all of Mr. Aveline's comments and statements would 
require a pamphlet the size of the one I did on Paul Johnson's 
speculations about HPB and the Masters. But I hope the above will 
suffice for the time being.

Daniel H. Caldwell
Blavatsky Study Center
http://blavatskyarchives.com