Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00295)

Dear Carlos,
       
       You point out: "Most theosophical magazines today ignore the theosophical movement itself, its difficulties, its history, its need to get rid of some illusions in order to go ahead."
        Agreed. But, just as this site allows you to do this, so to, will you have to allow for other perspectives upon your method. Again, I say method. The facts themselves being not in question by me. For they seem self validating. This is merely an application of the Third Fundemental in the form of checks and balances. 
        You will have also noticed, Carlos, that Lucifer, Theosophy Mag, and WQJ's The Path, while having strong commentary, all had other articles in them.
   
       
   
  Steve 
        
      

carlosaveline cardoso aveline <carlosaveline@hotmail.com> wrote:
  

Dear Cass, Dear Steve,



It was not so in HPB's time. She -- as the Masters in their Letters -- 
dedicated a lot of time and
energy discussing the living issues of the movement.

We have two diferent instances, in the theosophical movements, at least.

One is the literature, the map of the journey.

The other one is the movement itself, its groups and organizations, the 
common ground of mutual tests.

Both are necessary and useful contributions to the inner journey of every 
truth-seeker.

Once Radha Burnier wrote something like this:

"We need the theosophical movement in order to test our theories about 
universal brotherhood..."

And I think she was right.

It is not a question of winning or loosing. It is a question of 
understanding and sharing.

No one is above illusions. Everyone has the right and the duty to be 
sincere.


The movement is the result of our common actions and in-actions. If we feel 
responsible, we will share our views.


Best regards, Carlos.







>From: Cass Silva 
>Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: Theos-World A PATTERN OF AMBIGUITY
>Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:15:48 -0800 (PST)
>
>I simply view the historical and political debates as a waste of mental 
>energy. In exactly the same vein that Jesus' teachings are able to stand on 
>their own merit and are not dependant upon biblical interpretations or 
>historical context. It appears nothing more than missionary or fiscal 
>motive presenting itself as virtue.
>
>Cass
>
>Steven Levey wrote: Dear Carlos
>
> You know, I think its possible that while students read all that you 
>have presented, they may be, and quite possibly are, for the most part 
>internalizing their reponses. In other words, we may never see in print a 
>large satisfying acknowledgement of the evidence you are presenting from 
>contributors on theos-talk, regarding Adyar, Mr. Caldwell, or Mr. Algeo. Or 
>its opposite.
> Yes, we have seen responses from those few who are obviously 
>convinced of the errors as revealed by you (such as myself), and we have 
>seen the responses of those few who are remaining openly skeptical. But 
>these few, in either camp, are just a few. There are many who are obviously 
>outwardly non-commental in their silence. However, it seems foolish to me 
>to think that they are non-commental internally to themselves. This is 
>probably going to be the way it is for the most part.
> For one looking for responses, the lack of them may appear 
>ambiguous, and those responses which are neither "hot nor cold" certainly 
>are. But, again, in either case attempting to draw larger concusions over 
>this seems an error.
> So, if the conversations continue to focus on different subjects, 
>there is really no way to know if this means that folks are changing the 
>subject out of the need to remain agnostic over these issues, or just to 
>make the discussion somewhat more accessable. In doing so, students may be 
>thinking more about the implications of theosophical thought, than having 
>to immediately make up their minds over these blunders that are actually 
>over. Sure, they will continue in some form or another, but not the ones 
>which have been recently in focus.
> Don't get me wrong. Student's must choose to light their way with 
>the actual Truth and ultimately discriminate between who is actually 
>passing it on. Its just that it has to happen in their own time, regardless 
>of the consequences of putting it off. As I see it, This is the Path.
>
> Steve
>
>carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
>
>
>
>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>
>�It may be true, it may be false, who knows?�
>
>ADYAR T.S. AND ITS PATTERN OF AMBIGUITY
>
>Carlos Cardoso Aveline
>
>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>As we examine the �editorial policy� adopted by Mr. Daniel Caldwell and 
>Mr.
>John Algeo, we may recognize in it an old pattern of ambiguity, doubt and
>indecision which dates back to Annie Besant�s time.
>
>Since the 1890s, Adyar has been accumulating doubts and skepticism
>underneath its practice of blind belief and ritualistic authoritarianism.
>
>1) In the 1890s, A. Besant and H. Olcott made a worldwide campaign against
>William Judge, accusing him of forging messages from the Masters. They
>created a Committee to judge him but the Committee did not do this. Once
>Besant and Olcott had won their political struggle for power against W. Q.
>Judge, they both gave signs they had repented from those accusations. Yet
>W. Q. Judge has NOT been declared inocent yet. Adyar leaders seem to say:
>�He may be guilty, he may innocent, who knows? And who is anyone to 
>know?�
>Indeed, thus began the policy of power-ambiguity.
>
>2) Let�s see another example. C. W. Leadbeater went to Mars and Mercury 
>and
>had many other absurd fancies about talking to the Masters, about being an
>Initiate, about a Second Coming of Jesus Christ, etc. Yet even now Adyar
>authorities say: �C.W.L. may be right, he may be wrong, who knows? And 
>who
>are you to judge him?� A firmly �agnostic� position about obvious 
>facts.
>Those who want to see more sincerity are systematically accused of being
>arrogant, authoritarian and unbrotherly. Thus the discussion is astutely
>taken to the personal level and the facts are forgotten. If the questioners
>happen to be members of the Adyar Society, they are usually persecuted
>until they get out of it.
>
>3) Let�s see one more fine example of such a systematic ambiguity. H. P.
>Blavatsky was the object of libels in the 1880s. The S.P.R., which made the
>false charges, abandoned all of them in the 1980s. Now, surprisingly
>enough, those lies are being published as part of H.P.B.�s own writings!
>And that�s not all. They are being published with no clear identification
>to the average reader. This editorial practice is tantamount to directly
>libelling her. What is Mr. John Algeo�s position? �These letters might 
>be
>false, or they might be true�. What about Mr. Daniel Caldwell�s 
>position?
>�These are �negative accounts� and �testimonies� �. The fact 
>that they are
>UTTER LIES apparently makes them look rather useful to those Editors�s 
>eyes
>� for motives of their own. In the case of Caldwell�s book, the Masters 
>of
>the Wisdom are, themselves, personally attacked.
>
>4) Quite recently, in February 2006, Daniel Caldwell was identified by Paul
>Johnson in Theos-talk as the physical person behind false names such as
>�David Green�, �Terry Hobbes� and others, used to attack the ULT 
>and other
>of his �blanks�. Confronted with Johnson�s facts, Caldwell does not
>clarify the issue. Caldwell�s friends seem to say: �The charges may be
>true, and they may be false, who knows? And who is anyone to judge 
>Daniel?�
>Yet it is not a question of judging him as a person. It is a question of
>evaluating some of his actions -- which seem to belong to the same old
>pattern of �political�, systematical ambiguity.
>
>Examples could be many, but these are enough for a start.
>
>In the Adyar Society, since the 1890s, we have had a thick layer of 
>top-down
>blind authority and blind belief, on one hand. On the other hand, there is
>a great amount of skepticism, doubts and unbelief.
>
>These two extremes are kept in a dangerous equilibrium through the art of
>political and authoritarian ambiguity. Officially, this policy of �maybe
>yes, maybe not� is presented to the world as pure liberty of thought. Yet
>anyone who searches for a clear, unambiguous position is immediately 
>accused
>of being intolerant and authoritarian, and of �disturbing harmony�.
>
>Thus H.P.B. and William Judge, who had pure minds and hearts, are put at 
>the
>same moral level as C.W.Leadbeater and James Wedgwood, whose ethical
>behaviour and spiritual discernment are located somewhere below sea level.
>
>This ambiguity-system does not belong to Neo-Theosophists only. It has
>ancient roots. In the West, it started with the Greek Sophists.
>
>While Greek �Philosophers� (literally, �friends of the wisdom�) 
>were
>commited to seek truth regardless of self-interest, �Sophists� like
>Protagoras held that truth can be adapted to anyone�s short term 
>interests,
>like getting money and personal power. Hence the famous sentence: �Man (
>i.e., one�s short term goals) is the measure of all things�.
>
>The matter of the fact is that Sophism is not a process located exclusively
>outside of ourselves. It is also a role played by our lower quaternaries
>or outer personalities in producing self-delusions and a whole set of
>short-term interests and mayavic ideations which prevent us from seeing
>truth in a clear way.
>
>If we have the patience and the courage needed, little by little we can get
>rid of it.
>
>In the decades ahead, we should be able to perceive and understand more and
>more of these personal and collective mechanisms of self-delusion.
>
>For this, two essential factors are: A) the courage to develop an
>independent thinking; and B) the loyal hearing to the �voice of the
>silence� -- which is the voice of our own conscience. Both factors 
>develop
>at the same time, and eventually such a process will stimulate
>buddhi-manas.
>
>(On the other hand, active factors like blind belief, hatred and fear
>obviously tend to block Antahkarana, the manasic bridge between higher and
>lower selves.)
>
>
>Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline
>
>
>O o o o O o o o O o o o O o o o O
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Com o MSN Spaces voc� divide seu blog, suas fotos, sua lista de m�sica 
>e
>muito mais com seus amigos! Crie j� o seu espa�o online e com seus 
>amigos! E
>s� entra no http://spaces.msn.com/
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Brings words and photos together (easily) with
> PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Yahoo! Mail
>Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Seja um dos primeiros a testar o novo Windows Live Mail Beta.Acesse 
http://www.ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d




Yahoo! Groups Links








		
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
 PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

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