To Bruce and to Daniel
Feb 12, 2006 03:34 PM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline
Dear friends,
I guess Bruce was too kind and too modest (see below).
His editorials are all excellent.
He edits a superbly written magazine, FOHAT, which has been accomplishing a
fundamental task
in defending the true CORE of the movement, side by side with "The Aquarian
Theosophist" and,
in Portugal, the magazine "Sofia", edited by José Manuel Anacleto.
One of the great recent accomplishments of the Edmonton Theosophical
Society, recently,
was the publication of "The Judge Case", a book which will help change the
history of the
theosophical movement in the years to come. It was written by a courageous
and lifelong worker/student of the theosophical movement, Ernest Pelletier.
Everyone should have a copy of this book, almost the size of the "Webster
Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary".
What I believe Mr. Daniel Caldwell must do, instead of trying to make other
people feel guilty, is to honestly answer to that splendid text given to us
all by Paul Johnson on Danikel's "secret work".
Last Friday, Paul Johnson has documented much about something which seems to
be Daniel's ability and conscious decision to create false persons, and to
use these false persons and false names in order to systematically attack
theosophical institutions (except Adyar, and John Algeo, and Betty Bland).
It is important that Daniel does explains his mind to us.
I see right now two trends of thought and action in the Adyar Society. One
is the civilized one, which corresponds to Radha Burnier, Mary Anderson and
some others, and includes, naturally, all those who try to improve
themselves and live Theosophy. But there seems to be in the USA Adyar TS
some nucleus of which Daniel and Algeo might belong, which is experimenting
with what I would call "alternative methods of search for power". THese
might include "trolling" as described by Paul Johnson and the creation of
false persons and false names to atack those who they want to
see attacked. This is only a conjecture, please, understand that Daniel,
and I would like to see you bravely explain to us all any injustice or
mistakes Paul may have done in this long and brilliant, and documented, text
on your possibly secret ativities against the ULT and other theosophists.
According to Paul Johnson, a person who deserves the respect of us all,
Daniel, you inventing persons. And I cannot judge you before you explain
things and give us all your first-hand view about the whole subject!!
I even believe Paul Johnson says more: he says, in a documented way, that
you have created more than one person. It is not just David Green which you
have secretly "created", according to him.
Will you explain that to us, dear Daniel?
I assure you you will win respect from all of us if you do that. I am not
sure I can say the same if you do not.
Best regards to Daniel, to Bruce and to all,
Peace to all beings,
Shanti, Carlos Cardoso Aveline
From: "robert_b_macd" <robert.b.macdonald@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Re: To Robert Bruce MacDonald: "Attacks", etc. Part I
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 01:26:56 -0000
Daniel, thank you for the opportunity to address these matters. I
knew it was only a matter of time before you brought them up. I am
not interested in addressing every example in turn as that would take
forever, however I will address the two general subjects of what you
call "attacks" on the officers of Wheaton/Adyar, and my criticism of
Paul Johnson in an editorial in Fohat.
Let's start with Paul. As I re-read the editorial, I must agree with
Daniel that the editorial lacks a civil tone which I sincerely regret.
I got carried away and the only excuse that I can appeal to is
inexperiece at the time. For any and all harm that Paul may have
experienced for the lack of civility, I apologize most humbly.
That being said, as I read the editorial I see what I was trying to do
was to contrast two approaches. The approach of a principled
theosophist defending a now denfeseless woman vs. what I understood
many historians to perceive as part of their job. This job as I
described it in the editorial was to take historical facts and
unproven allegations, assign base motives to the players and then see
what kind of twisted mess you can make of the whole thing. This was
not an historical rebuttal of the book, as my point was that from a
principled point of view it was unworthy of such. This was a
philosophical rebuttal of the approach that many Historians take when
putting together a thesis, especially on controversial subject such as
H.P.B. I suggested that it was possible that Paul Johnson, out of
fear of his peers, took the above approach, and softened such a charge
in the end by saying "Perhaps this is unfair, but in the end there is
no good reason for putting forward these false accusations." So here
I was saying that although the above analysis may be unfair as far as
Paul was concerned, there is still the question of why he did not
adopt what I call the principled approach.
Let's look at one of the more categorical statements that I made in
the editorial: "Assigning base motives to Blavatsky and her co-workers
as well as twisting facts to fit his sorry vision of the world is a
clear indication of where Paul Johnson's mind is at this point in his
life." Paul could quite fairly point to this statement as a clear
example of the pot calling the kettle black. The writer of the
editorial must take responsibility for his own twisted logic in not
giving more weight to compassion for the human condition in presenting
his overly harsh argument. The untying of the Gordian Knot is the
human condition and I am just as involved in the effort of seeing
clearly as everyone else. In my defense all I can say is that I never
assigned base motive to Paul, only a confused approach. The criticism
was of behavior, not of character. I understand that if behavior is
harmful to another (in this case the reputation of H.P.B. and the
Masters) then it is our duty to be critical of the behavior which is
what I endeavored to do.
Let's score 1 for Daniel for my lack of compassion and sloppy
execution of my intended goals. Paul was not trying to be maliscious
and deserved a fairer treatment.
Daniel also accuses me of a similar lack of civility towards the
officials of Adyar. All I can do is laugh at this charge. This whole
debate was covered at the following:
http://www.theosophycanada.com/fohat_emails.htm
I have neither the desire nor the time to repeat it. I was held to
account by both Daniel Caldwell and Katinka Hesselink who encouraged
me to write in great detail on the matter. Whereas I might rephrase
things differently in the context of the current debate, the essential
principles are all there for anyone who should care to search for them.
I am afraid I now have a magazine to attend to and will not be able to
continue our discussions over the next few weeks. I will check back
sometime in March. Adieu!
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
To Robert Bruce MacDonald: "Attacks", "Personal Aspect" or Otherwise to the
Attacks, etc. Part I
Dear Robert Bruce MacDonald,
On Theos-Talk, you wrote concerning me:
===================================================
I don't think anyone is accusing Mr. Caldwell of bad will, but rather of
inappropriate behavior. Will speaks to motive which none of us can know.
Behavior is there for all to see. I suspect what people object to with Mr.
Caldwell is that there is a personal aspect to his attacks....I don't think
anyone objects to the principles of the subjects that Mr. Caldwell wants to
discuss, but rather to his confrontational style. If after years of trying
he hasn't gotten answers to his questions, maybe he should change his
approach. What do you think Daniel?
=================================================
Bruce, when I first read the above material from you, I heard a voice
whisper in my ear,
"He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
This has prompted me to decide to write a series of articles with that
title:
"He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
Now of course you don't exactly define what you mean by "attacks" or by
"personal aspect" but I will ask you to give your opinion of some examples
so we will better understand your point of view.
I ask you if these examples could ALSO be considered "attacks" and if they
have "personal aspects"?
I think these examples are even more important to discuss since you also
wrote to Paul Johnson the following:
===================================================================
I understand human nature to be such that if we 'act' civil and respectful
towards one another then in time we will 'be' civil and respectful towards
one another. We learn by doing. If we stay away from inuendo (corrosive) or
bold face accusations of ill motive or ignorant motive, then we remove a
hurtful element from this site...."
===================================================================
First of all, I'm wondering if these just quoted words of yours have
actually guided you as editor of FOHAT and the kind of material you have
permitted in that Theosophical journal.
Or is this policy only a new one that you want to see implemented on this
site and not necessarily in the pages of FOHAT?
But I will deal with this a little later.
First the examples.
The first example I give you is what Mr. Aveline posted here not too long
ago.
I am not certain if the article from which this quote is extracted was ever
published in FOHAT or THE AQUARIAN THEOSOPHIST.
Do you know if this article by Mr. Aveline was published in FOHAT?
Anyway, Bruce, would you consider what Mr. Aveline wrote as an "attack" and
as an attack having a "personal aspect" to it?
Here are Mr. Aveline's words:
==============================================================
The way Daniel Caldwell and John Algeo – editors of "The Esoteric World of
Madame Blavatsty and of "The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky, volume I " – see
Theosophy is based in a certain moral relativism.
It seems that for this kind of editor everything can be true and everything
can be false, according to their own interests.
Will publishing libels against HPB make a book "hotter" in the market?
May belittling HPB help keeping the structure of the Adyar Society the way
it is now, Leadbeaterian, churchlike and ritualistic?
They won't think twice. They do not seem to care too much about truth....
=================================================================
Now Bruce, what is your honest opinion?
Does Mr. Aveline's words seem "civil and respectful" to you?
Did Mr. Aveline (to quote your own words) "stay away from inuendo
(corrosive) or bold face accusations of ill motive" when writing what he
did about Dr. Algeo and me?
And if by chance this article did appear in FOHAT (I hope it didn't!), do
you think you as editor are encouraging a "civil and respectful" atmosphere
in your magazine by allowing such words to be expressed?
Now I will turn to the second example which unfortunately I do not have the
exact quote for but I'm sure you can probably supply me with.
Apparently in the Spring 1998 issue of FOHAT, you wrote an editorial in
which you make certain comments about Paul Johnson's book which he wrote on
Blavatsky and the Mahatmas.
At the time I wrote to you as follows:
"...you come down quite hard on Johnson's research and conclusions. In
fact, you give a quite negative assessement and portrayal of Johnson's
scholarship. And you even do some 'psychoanalysis' on Johnson's
motivations, etc. "
Later in the same letter, I again write:
"You even indulged in pseudo-psychoanalysis of Johnson's psyche,
motivations, etc."
It would appear that I believed you were indulging in an "ad hominem"
argument against Johnson instead of just dealing with the substance of his
arguments, etc. as presented in his book.
Since I cannot find my copy of that particular issue of FOHAT, can you be
so kind as to provide me a copy of your exact words (you can simply post
your words to this Theos-Talk forum) especially that part where you
apparently write about his "psyche" and "motivations?
Again:
I ask you, do you think your own written words constitute an "attack" and
have "personal aspects" to it?
Have you in fact followed your own wise words which read:
"stay away from inuendo (corrosive) or bold face accusations of ill
motive..."???
The third example:
In 2003 Volume I of LETTERS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY (edited by John Algeo)was
published by the Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, Illnois.
The Fall, 2004 issue of FOHAT contains an editorial by you introducing
letters from readers criticizing John Algeo for including in this Volume I
of the LETTERS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY the "spy letter" (Letter No. 7) and
nineteen "Solovyov letters" (especially letters No. 12,17, 53, 69 and 76).
Apparently these "HPB" letters are considered by you and these readers to
be frauds or at least partial fabrications.
In your editorial comments, you wrote as follows:
"One could conclude...that the powers of Wheaton and Adyar are trying to
introduce a PERVERTED understanding of Blavatsky into the world...."
"There are very good POLITICAL reasons for including those letters. Adyar
and Wheaton embrace a brand of 'theosophy' that is built upon the work of
Annie Besant, Charles Leadbeater, and their worshipping followers."
"Adyar and Wheaton have to believe, and they have TO ENSURE that their
members believe in the sainthood of at least Besant. This sainthood cannot
be guaranteed if Blavatsky, Judge and their interpretations of the Masters
are not made suspect. The easiest way to accomplish this is TO ATTACK the
reputations of these two founders of the society and attribute to them
base, political motives, to make them as ethical as a Jesuit.
"Adyar and Wheaton obviously WANT these letters included in these
collections and YOU CAN BE SURE that they will not be the last of their
type. There will be other letters of the same ilk in future volumes. If you
are members of these organizations, do not let your leadership get away
with this."
[Quoted from Fall, 2004 issue of FOHAT] Caps added.
Now Bruce I ask you:
Is this an "attack"?
You certainly don't name names but you make vague references to Adyar and
Wheaton and to their "leaders" so one might assume you are referring to
certain flesh and blood Theosophical leaders who are doing all these
things!
And you even claim that "they" are engaged in a specific attack!
And you seem quite confident in what you state and even say:
"...you can be sure..."
Bruce, do your own words here reflect a "civil and respectful" attitude?
Did you follow your own advise to "stay away from inuendo (corrosive) or
bold face accusations of ill motive..."?
I will present more examples in Part II.
Daniel
_________________________________________________________________
Copa 2006: Juiz @#$%*&!? e mais frases para seu MSN Messenger
http://copa.br.msn.com/extra/frases/
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
