Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00482)

Hi FreeSkyBird,

I'm glad you are part of our clubs of independent theosophists that have no 
members. (Or, maybe, only one each.)   </:-)>

The rest of them -- be they real "fundamentalists" (like me and others who 
believe only in the three Fundamental Principles, and respect the three objects 
of the Theosophical Movement)), revisionists (like those who follow CWL, AB or 
AAB), or religionists (like those who form cults and sects that slavishly 
worship the revisionists or idolize their selected "founders" or "authorities") 
-- should stick to their own business in their own clubhouses (Lodges) and stop 
knocking those who take a different view of theosophy than themselves, or 
those who see it's eclectic nature for what it really is without attributing it 
to any single personality.   

As theosophists (if that's what they really are or think they are), they 
should always remember that; Theosophists are as theosophy does. (no quotes, since 
that's my line) <\;-)>

Lone Eagle 
a.k.a. Leon or Lenny

P.S, Did you catch the oxymoronic contradiction in the above Subject line? 


In a message dated 3/4/06 9:39:18 PM, samblo@cs.com writes:


> Leon,
>    As you might have noticed by my previous posts I have many of the same
> reflections on what Carlos posts. A few days back one of his compatriots 
> also
> made the statement that of all the other Theosophical Forums there are 
> online
> this Distinguished Forum is the only one that is "unmoderated" and as such 
> has
> the distinct unique character of allowing this muckraking to happen. I 
> suspect
> they have already. previous to entering here, tried to posts this maligned
> content elsewhere and were summarily ejected by the Forum Moderators 
> everywhere
> else in the Theosophical Online Forum World.
> 
>    Daniel, contrary to the memory of Carlos just a short time back did post 
> a
> reply to one of Carlos's primary gripes, that he did not in a scholarly
> manner inform readers that the Soloveeff  counterfeit mahatma letters were 
> not
> authentic and in facts false. That the Coulomb's made false lies and 
> statements
> about H.P.B., but Daniel did just that, came here and cited the pages in his
> book where he noticed his readers of these facts, there wasn't then any 
> deception
> on the part of Daniel if he did indeed perform this service to his readers.
> So why does Carlos in such a recalcitrant manner ignore Daniel's citation 
> when
> he is observably able to cite chapter and verse elsewhere? I seem to detect 
> a
> double standard here.
> 
>    G.R.S. Mead in his "Fragments of a Faith Forgotten" long ago divided the
> Book into two primary divisions 1. The Enemies of the Gnosis 2. The Friends 
> of
> the Gnosis by doing this he performed a service to his readers who, many of
> which were unfamiliar with the History, the Groups, the Partisanships, The
> Controversies of the various Parties intimate and inseparable to TRUTH as 
> their
> very existence itself was process of the very stream of Life and 
> Consciousness of
> the Roman Institution of the Church. The Roman Church tried to do the
> selfsame act that Carlos and also the Marxist communists did do, that of 
> exiling the
> facts of TRUE History and supplanting a reductionist faulted distortion and
> monstrosity as the only Authorized Canon of True History. I would hate to 
> have
> to live where only the one truth that some would like to force us to eat
> against our will until some generation will never ever know there was any 
> dissident
> view, that there never ever was any counterfeit mahatma letters, that there
> never ever was the Coloumbs who lied, or any one in the world at all who 
> dared
> to opine the nonparty Line. As I have said before "Boy am I glad to live in
> America!"
> 
>   It also seems to me that Carlos in pursuing his pet arguments incorporates
> the ULT long-standing disgruntlement about a controversy over the "Lineage
> Holder" William Quan Judge. Where did the Mahatma's or Madame Blavatsky 
> establish
> or instruct anyone to create or install a "Lineage?" In The Buddhist 
> Religion
> the various "sects" hold their "Lineage" most dearly as precious to their
> very existence, without which they are nothing to their genuflection. Is it 
> also
> the express goal and purpose of the ULT to stifle, exile, ban, smother,
> repress, suppress the true actual events, persons and Real History of 
> Theosophy that
> Truly happened? Isn't that the crux of Daniels crime in the eyes of Carlos
> and some others? Perhaps they also hold recriminations because he dared to
> publish the Stokkes Letters with the personal observations of Stokkes who 
> standing
> at the deathbed of William Quan Judge wrote his observations as true as he
> could for posterity. I thank Daniel for doing this service for all of us for
> posterity and the sake of Truth.
> 
>   Personally I am cautious about "Lawyers" and have learned to never trust a
> Lawyer, A.P. Sinnett was a Lawyer and so was William Quan Judge. But Madame
> Blavatsky was not!
> 
>    Personally I can't distinguish between "Edited and corrected" by Annie
> Besant, C. W. Leadbeater, Alice Bailey,William Quan Judge or others when it
> involves the original Authorship of Madame Blavatsky. My personal druthers 
> is that
> one and all leave it alone, I want to read the "exact original" text she 
> wrote
> as she wrote it. Alter-is is alter-is.
>    Maybe if this discussion goes on about Daniel's alleged actions the
> previous post I made about membership of registered Theosophists in America 
> being
> 2875 living persons we may seen decline to under a thousand, it wouldn't
> surprise me at all. Then all the Titles and Position so dearly sought after 
> by some
> will have significance only in their minds and no where else, look what they 
> do
> to themselves.
> 
> I don't belong to any Lodge my mind is free like a bird and vast like the
> sky, lol.
> 
> John
> 


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