Theos-Talk Archives (February 2006 Message tt00095)

robert_b_macd wrote:
>     carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
>
> > As to me, he is welcome to do so. I would be proud to be          
> > attacked instead of her.   To be critized for defending HPB is good
> > karma,  not only to me, but to all those who have the  opportunity
> > and the priviledge to do this.  I also happen to be among those
> > students who have a heartfelt commitment with their souls not to be
> > silent while utter lies and libels are publicized against their
> > sacred Teacher.
> "Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all
> in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H."
>
>           	 - Koot Hoomi.
>
> Now one may ask what is happening here?  I can't know for sure what
> Bart is alluding to, but here is how I understand it (and please
> correct me if I'm wrong).  Carlos comes close to sounding like he has
> put HPB on some sort of pedestal and commenced worshiping her.
> However, to read it that way would be uncharitable.  
	Uncharitable? Does that mean telling the truth? Carlos treats Blavatsky 
as perfect and above all criticism. Not even the Mahatmas considered 
themselves to be either.

> Bart then teases
> Carlos with the kind of reply that the enemies of Truth so often trot
> out in these types of instances giving us the KH quote (a quote
> referring to the capitalized pronoun "Him" that Christians are so fond
> of) out of context.  At this point bells should be going off in the
> head of every theosophist who reads this and we should be asking
> ourselves how to understand the principles of this passage from Carlos
> so that when fellow theosophists are attacked for allegedly worshiping
> anyone, we know how to defend them.
	They laughed at the Wright Brothers. The also laughed at the Marx 
Brothers. Carlos has been advocating treating Blavatsky as a deity. I 
called a spade a spade.

> When Carlos chooses to defend his Teacher of the sacred or "sacred
> Teacher" it is only because he understands this fact.   Blavatsky died
> a poor woman writing to the very end trying to promote the spirit of
> the movement that she helped initiate.  She did not profit materially
> from founding the Theosophical Society.  In fact most of the little
> income she made was used to help further the cause.  If she didn't
> profit then why did she do it?  As I understand it, it was done out of
> love for humanity and this makes her a Great Soul (excuse the
> capitals) and therefore deserving of respect.
	I certainly respect Blavatsky. Enough not to turn her into something 
that, from her writings, it is clear that she despised.

> In as much as we are all trying to help others along this same Path
> and don't do it for money but rather for love of humanity, we all
> deserve to be shown this same respect.  For example, if Bart were to
> accuse Daniel of being a CIA disinformation artist specializing in HPB
> and Theosophical matters who is trying to plant divisive ideas within
> the body of theosophical knowledge, we should all have to defend
> Daniel from Bart and I am sure that we all would.  Daniel has put in
> thousands of unpaid hours helping theosophists and if he has made any
> errors, then it must be assumed that the errors were out of ignorance
> (a defect that we should all have the humility to acknowledge having).
	All I can say is, huh? Next thing, you're going to say that the 
Holocaust never happened. Wait a second, your magazine already did.

> The public are not experts
> and therefore lack the means to discriminate between truth and lie,
> accepted theory and rejected theory, etc. 
	In other words, you consider yourself better than everybody else. 
Unless you, too lack the means to discriminate between truth and lie, 
accepted theory and rejected theory, etc. If you do have that lack, then 
I apologize.

	Bart