Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00189)

In a message dated 3/4/06 4:52:00 PM, robert.b.macdonald@hotmail.com writes:


> >Theosophists and others,
> >
> >The following letter has one basic failure of understanding that belies
> >every statement it makes or conclusion it implies.   And that understanding
> >is that; A true "Historian" can only report *everything* that is pertinent
> >to the *truth* of *exactly* what happened, including what anyone said or
> >wrote, at any particular time in history -- without making any personal
> >judgments or opinions about any of it.
> 
> It seems to me that this is exactly what Daniel refuses to do, make a
> personal judgment.  If he believes the Coulombs and Solovyoffs of this
> world, he should have the courage to say so and argue why they should be
> taken seriously.  If he believes, as others have argued, that much of what
> they say is fabricated (hence lies), he should have the courage to come out
> strong in support of HPB.  What Daniel does instead (intentionally or not)
> is insidious.  He repeats the lies without any argument at all (he simply
> states that some of the points of view are from enemies, as if enemies and
> liars are the same thing).  Some would argue that this lack of taking a
> stance is cowardice at best, and diabolical at its worst.
> 
> Depends on whether or not Daniel wrote his book simply as an unbiased 
historian or as a biased theosophist or pseudo theosophist with some sort of ax to 
grind.   My argument is that we should not allow ourselves to prejudge that 
issue, and if either is true, then Carlos is still wrong in his personal 
harassment of Daniel based on suspician alone with respect to another unrelated issue 
(i.e., Daniel's supposed fraud of using a pseudonym and his "guilty until 
proven innocent" silence).
> 
> >This is something that the author has to Learn -- so that he can understand
> >why his own personal opinions, implied, insinuated or otherwise, have no
> >validity whatsoever, and are nothing more than unfounded gossip when they
> >pertain to the motives or actions of anyone else.
> 
> These are not opinions, Carlos is arguing that there is a difference between
> liars and enemies and liars do not deserve the same treatment as enemies. 
> Enemies are to be respected because they believe they are dealing with the
> truth.  Liars know they are not.  When looking at a body of evidence
> presented by one party (for instance the Coulombs), when some of that
> evidence is shown to be fabricated, then it shows that that party has
> deliberately misled (like the Coulombs), and nothing they say can be
> trusted.  If you as a historian want to repeat some aspect of these proven
> liars testimony, then the onus of proof is on you.  Prove that this aspect
> of their testimony is valid, otherwise your behavior is immoral as it does
> nothing but sully the reputation of an innocent person by repitition of
> garbage.
> 
Carlos is arguing nothing of the kind, since his harassment of Daniel is 
based on suspician of his supposed fraud.   The issue of whether Daniel is 
obligated to defend Blavatsky against the lies of her enemies or not is another 
matter altogether.   I am satisfied to believe he may have thought he was writing a 
true history of the circumstances and was simply presenting all sides of the 
issue with sufficient indication about what was proven to be lies and what was 
not.   Having read all that was said about those circumstances by many 
authors, I have never had any trouble 
> 
> >His taking on the role of prosecutor, judge and jury is far more insidious
> >and untheosophical than the purported actions of someone he repeatedly
> >implies, besides remaining silent in the face of such unproved accusations
> >(as HPB did with her attackers) has committed some kind of fraud by
> >reporting the truth of what happened to HPB, and publishing all the so
> >called evidential comments and writings of those that attacked as well as
> >defended her -- without his own personal comment or opinions... And letting
> >the readers judge for themselves what is true or false, and who is right or
> >wrong, innocent or guilty.
> 
> Deal with the argument, Leon.  The arguments of enemies are to be treated
> with respect, the words of liars need not be accorded any respect.  If you
> believe the Coulombs, etc. to be other than liars, argue for them.  To
> attack Carlos for trying to stand up for someone he has a great deal of
> respect for is ludicrous.  Once people are shown to be liars, their words
> are "evidence" only in proceedings against them (libel, contempt of court,
> etc.).
> 
You've gone way offbase here. The argument I was dealing with had nothing to 
do with Daniels respect or disrespect for the lies of the coulombs or the 
guilt or innocence of HPB.   It was directed solely toward pointing out Carlos 
gossip-like harassment of Daniel based on hearsay evidence of his supposedly 
fraudulent action.   Carlos has used the argument that he is defending HPB as a 
smokescreen to cover up his obvious personal attacks on another contributor here 
by inference and innuendo that I called him on in public forum.   I have no 
reason to defend those actions dased on your reasonable but misplaced criticism 
of my position.


> >As further advice to students of theosophy, the judgment of HPB's 
> teachings
> >are dependent only on the teachings themselves, and not on her personal
> >life or actions, regardless of whether one approves of them or not.
> 
> Certainly the above is true, but this does not make it open season on her
> reputation.  When is it permissable to start sullying your name?  Now?  One
> minute after your death? A year?  Hopefully as theosophists we will all
> stand by you even after your death and not let lies diminish your memory in
> the eyes of the world.
> >
> >Henceforth, I intend to trash such personalized, propaganda-like letters
> >before wasting my time reading them.   What anyone else does about them, is
> >strictly their own business.
> 
> Your prerogative,
> 
> Bruce
> >
> >LHM
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 3/4/06 11:08:53 AM, carlosaveline@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> >Dear Friends,
> >
> >
> >In the year 2000, the Theosophical Publishing House/Quest Books published
> >the unfortunate volume "The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky", by Daniel
> >Caldwell.
> >
> >This 451 pp. book is a collection of testimonies, false and true,  about
> >the
> >life of  H. P. Blavatsky.  With this book, Daniel Caldwell inaugurated a
> >new
> >   "editorial policy" adopted by the Adyar Theosophical Society in  America
> >,
> >which consists of publishing lies and libels invented by the old enemies of
> >H. P. Blavatsky  and of the theosophical movement as if they were authentic
> >documents.
> >
> >The new editorial "policy" also includes publishing these false accusations
> >scattered amidst authentic documents, which makes it harder  for the
> >unexperienced student to identify the falsehoods whose effect -  if
> >unresisted -  would be killing HPB´s memory and destroying its spiritual
> >vibration at the moral, ethical and occult levels, which are inevitably
> >interconnected.
> >
> >Thus HPB´s image could be apparently put at the same level as some other
> >"theosophical" leaders, perhaps. In the disgusting volume "The Esoteric
> >World of Madame Blavatsky"  - while believing  the editor has selected
> >truthful documents -  the reader will bump into many of the lies written
> >against HPB. There he will see two texts by  Emma Coulomb (pp. 35-36 and
> >pp.
> >210-215) with no word from the "editor" Daniel Cadlwell admitting he is
> >publishing documents which have no trace of truth in them whatsoever.
> >
> >Caldwell´s book also contains two texts by Mr. Solovyov with attacks
> >against
> >HPB; one false testimony by Mr. Richard Hodgson, several false accusations
> >against HPB made by Moncure D. Conway and many other unjust attacks aimed
> >at
> >her who is not here to defend herself.  The disgusting material includes
> >utter disrespect for two Sacred Teachers and Their names, in one of the
> >libels signed by Emma Coulomb.
> >
> >Its  reproduction by  a Publishing House which calls itself "Theosophical"
> >is something which surpasses and goes relatively far beyond the limits of
> >absurdity. HPB wrote long enough in The Key to Theosophy   about the abuse
> >of sacred names, even when the cause of such a desecration is not a
> >collection of deliberate lies against the theosophical philosophy.
> >
> >
> >As to this kind of action, there are two levels of karma: the karma of
> >actively publishing lies against the Masters and HPB, and the karma of
> >anyone who knows about this and does nothing.  This will not be the  karma
> >of earnest students. In the Preliminary Memorandum of the Esoteric Section
> >of  Theosophical Society, issued in 1888, Mrs. Blavatsky made an inspiring
> >quotation from the Book of Discipline in the schools of Dzyan and from a
> >letter  of a Master: "He who wipeth not away the filth with which the
> >parent´s body have been defiled by an enemy, neither loves the parent nor
> >honours himself. He who defendeth not  the persecuted and the helpless
> >(...)
> >has been born too soon in human shape."   I can only humbly aggree with
> >these wise words.
> >
> >It is true that the editor of "The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky"
> >wrote at the preface of the book:
> >
> >"These reminiscenses by her relatives, acquaintances,  friends, 
> >co-workers,
> >and enemies  give a vivid portrayal of Madame Blavatsky´s personality and
> >allow the reader to enter into the historical milieu of her time."
> >
> >But he forgot the profound difference between an enemy and a liar.
> >
> >An enemy, says the dictionary, is an adversary or an opponent - often an
> >honest person.  A liar is a person who tells lies - or who knowingly helps
> >propagating them. Enemies may say unpleasant truths and we should be able
> >to
> >learn from them. The problem is not with enemies, then, but with false
> >testimonies. The editor of  "The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky"
> >wrongly called "reminiscenses" the old, well-known falsehoods and proved
> >lies.  He and TPH-Wheaton considered them  beautiful enough to go to the
> >public.
> >
> >O o o O o o O o o O
> >
> >Best regards,  Carlos.
> >
> >
> >O o o O o o O o o O
> >
> >
> >NOTE:
> >
> >The paragraphs above are part of my text "The Embellishment of Truth",
> >published in "FOHAT", the magazine of the Edmonton Theosophical Society,
> >Canada, in the Summer 2005 issue.
> >
> >O o o O o o O o o O
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]