Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00710)

Let us say, for argument's sake, that HPB, had reasons unknown to us, but obviously affirmed by the Masters, to preserve their identity and whereabouts    as "persona non gratis", while at the same time needing to acknowledge that the universal wisdom was directed and dictated by those same beings.  What a task for anyone!

Has any scholar of theosophy discovered a "lie" within the works given to the world, i.e. Isis and SD?   

Isn't this the cogent point?  

AS far as the bun fight over Tacoma etc, my humble and non scholastic attitude is that the Poparisation of the TS is continuing and will polarise the society out of credible existence, as is the case in the rise and fall of the catholic church.

No matter, the horse has already bolted, and the rider free at last from all the petty struggles brought about my men who may believe their crusade is based on moral integrity, laughable.

Christianity has been arguing for 2000 years about its claim as the one true religion, so those in what they consider powerful positions will be kept employed for many years to come, kicking up the dust.


Cass

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

Thanks for you interesting posting.

You say:

"I  expected in your reply below to either supply quotes where Paul did 
indeed make such statements, and/or to comment upon my discourse. Instead, 
you come up with a quote where
Paul uses the word "charlatans" in connection to HPB and Gurdjieff.  Now, 
liar and charlatan are two very different words with different meanings."

I say:

My point, Jerry,  is that Paul Johnson says that HPB lies or is a charlatan. 
The two words are applied to false persons.  If you believe charlatans do 
not lie, well, my friend! It sounds like that difference between "innocent" 
and "not guilty". (By the way, Brazilian tribunals use the word "innocent" 
instead of "not guilty").

The issue is that Paul says, implies and suggests that HPB was not truthful 
or reliable. We may all  use the words we prefer for that. There are plenty 
of them.  The meaning is the same, though.

Besides, my point is NOT that Paul openly and firmly states HPB is a  fraud. 
He follows Algeo's line. He suggests this is "a possibility among others".

This kind of action  is one of the most efficient forms of active slander. 
This is a form of slander in which the slander tries to avoid being caught 
as such.  This has been used in Adyar TS  since the false accusations 
against Judge in the 1890s.

When asked to clarify his position with regard to HPB's honesty (which 
should be no big deal!),   Paul, the Historian, refuses to to so, and gets 
away from the debate, using the  mask of a person with  offended  
sensitivities.

Is this emotionalistic  show a "scholarly attitude"?  Not at all.

It is well-known,  Jerry,  that authentic scholars and researchers do NOT 
get away when their thesis are confronted.

Just the opposite. They take every opportunity to clarify their facts,  to 
defend and to IMPROVE their viewpoints.

Only historians who are benefitting from authoritarian political structures 
will get nervous and bitter and reject clarifying their views.  Now, Adyar 
TS structure, as you may know, is not too open-minded...

So this is the kind of "Historian" some Adyar leaders (not Ms. Radha 
Burnier) need,  in order to avoid facing the consequences of  Leadbeater's 
biography written by Gregory Tillett -- and other publications which show 
20th century pseudo-theosophy as it is.

Radha Burnier  runs an authoritarian structure, to my view -- yes.

But she clearly disapproves the gossiping/libeling  policy about HPB,  and 
she will never -- as long as I know -- defend CW Leadbeater's clairvoyance 
and fancies.  I hope you understand I am looking at the context,  in order 
to understand the specific facts.

I am sorry if I did not discuss every point in your message below. I hope I 
addressed the main issues, though.   Let me know if I did not.

Thank you very much for your openess of mind.


Best regards,  Carlos.






>From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
>Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Theos-World To Carlos Cardoso Aveline--some thoughts and a reply
>Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:01:10 -0800
>
>Dear Carlos,
>
>I changed your subject heading out of respect for Paul, who has stated
>on several occasions that he does not like his name displayed in subject
>headings.  It is just a matter of respecting the preferences of
>others.   I replaced the heading with your name, which, of course, you
>are free and welcome to change.
>
>Because of my busy schedule, I have become more selective concerning
>which postings I read and which I reply to.  I try to reply to those
>posts which I feel that I can make a constructive contribution to the
>writer and/or interested readers.  To properly do this, I have to take
>the time to read (sometimes several times) the post, consider what they
>are saying (and implying), and then formulate an answer which I hope
>will move the topic along. This takes time.  But I believe that these
>kind of posts raises the overall quality of a discussion board and is
>helpful to others.  On the other hand, to argue for the sake of argument
>is, for me, a waste of energy and time.  It is my hope that my
>correspondents take the same time and consideration to reply to my
>messages to them.  Now, regarding our discussion.
>
>My last response to you was concerning your statement that Paul wrote
>that HPB "lied."  Here again is the statement you made, which I replied:
>
> >>When Paul Johnson writes that she lied, or implies that she lied, that 
>she was a Spy, etc. (which she denied vehemently and unendingly) he is 
>saying that her philosophy is the philosophy of a liar, the philosophy of a
> >>fraudulent woman.
> >>
>I replied that I did not recall Paul writing that HPB lied.  I then went
>into a carefully considered discourse about HPB's style of communication
>and how it is so often misunderstood.  I expected in your reply below to
>either supply quotes where Paul did indeed make such statements, and/or
>to comment upon my discourse. Instead, you come up with a quote where
>Paul uses the word "charlatans" in connection to HPB and Gurdjieff.
>Now, liar and charlatan are two very different words with different
>meanings.  My Webster's Dictionary defines the word in part: "one who
>prates much in his own favor, and makes unwarranted pretensions..."
>This definition seems to fit well the quote you gave me below.  It does
>not necessarily imply lying, but only self-promotion.  At any rate, this
>is an entirely different discussion.  If this is your method of
>discussion, that is, shifting the terms of the discussion with new
>arguments instead of responding to my discourse, then I must reply by
>saying that I frankly cannot afford the time, nor do I have an
>inclination to play this kind of game.  With this said, I will assume
>that you misunderstood and will more carefully re-read my last. In the
>mean time, I will respond to your statements below:
>
>I re-read the 1987 Theosophical History Pamphlet and noted the quotes
>given below.  Your sentence fragment  "had fraudulent aspects" Appears
>once on page three. In context, the quote reads:
>
>"The Sufi doctrine of instrumental teaching demonstrates a possible
>explanation of the apparently 'outrageous' and 'fraudulent" aspects of
>H.P.B. and Gurdjieff." He then goes on to explain what the Sufi doctrine
>of instrumental teaching is.  Note that Paul had put "outrageous" and
>"fraudulent" in quotes.  That means that he is quoting someone elses'
>use of the terms.  Also, the qualifier "apparently" indicates that
>whoever he is quoting, is not saying that aspects of H.P.B.'s and
>Gurdjieff's  methods appear to be fraudulent.  Also, the main sense of
>the paragraph, if you read it in its entirety, is to explain the
>doctrine of instrumental teaching, which Paul is suggesting that H.P.B.
>and Gurdjieff may have employed.  If they did, then that would mean that
>what appears to be outrageous and fraudulent is not so after all.
>
>
>The quote you cite on page seven is part of Paul's concluding
>paragraphs.  Here, he is naming several possible conclusions one can
>make about H.P.B. and Gurdjieff. To paraphrase the ideas: 1) that Both
>may have been Charlatans with Gurdjieff exploiting what HPB
>accomplished. 2) That H.P.B. was genuine and Gurdjieff not. 3) That
>Gurdjieff was sent to correct mistakes H.P.B. made 4) Both H.P.B. and
>Gurdjieff were genuine.  Paul does not, in his conclusion offer an
>opinion as to which, if any of those possibilities are correct.
>
> >2) Besides, I friendly challenge you to extract from Johnson any clear
> >declaration that he does NOT consider HPB a fraud, and that he considers 
>her
> >as a sincere, honest, decent woman, author and teacher. He uses the same
> >"maybe" tactics as Algeo and others, in the way he slanders HPB.  All his
> >books use that strategy. As he wants to sell his books, he will most 
>likely
> >NOT contradict himself in that. (In his "approach", Paul ignores the 1986
> >declaration of the SPR, etc.)
> >
>Carlos, you have to keep in mind that this article was submitted as a
>scholarly paper.  What you want Paul to write is an Hagiography or an
>Apologia.  Those kinds of discourse are not suitable for scholarly
>writing.   I can say that I have known Paul since 1984 and know for a
>fact that he does indeed admire HPB.
>
> >3) Of course, Esoteric Philosophy cannot be understood at the level of 
>outer
> >appearances ("face value"). True. Esoteric  Philosophy  deals with the
> >occult, or essential aspects of life, which are "invisible to the eyes" 
>(to
> >use St. Exupery's expression).  Yet they are invisible NOT because they 
>are
> >false, as illustrated-ignorants like Paul Johnson and John Algeo will 
>say.
> >
>I think that we all are ignorant at different levels.  Yet for one
>person to call another ignorant, reeks of arrogance to my nose.
>
> >See the 'Doctrine
> >of the Eye' versus the 'Doctrine of the Heart' in  "The Voice of the
> >Silence".
> >
>I have been studying HPB's writings for 43 years and teaching them for
>almost thirty years.  I think I understand to eye and heart doctrines
>well enough.
>
> >g a4) As to HPB bein fraud or semi-fraud, it is enough to see her astral
> >chart. She was a Leo in the sun sign. Is Leo a sign for fraud or lies? 
>No.
> >
>Benito Mussolini was born July 29, 18883.  That makes him a Leo too.
>What do you think of him?
>
> > directly opposite to the sometimes
> >unstable, anxious and astute Scorpio (while Scorpio as a sign also has 
>very
> >good qualities, of course).
> >
>Actually, Leo is opposite Aquarius.
>
> >HPB  was Cancer in her ascendant -- a
> >personality strongly emotional, sincere, loving, direct, sensitive, open,
> >compassionate, sometimes too vulnerable -- and uncapable of deceiving.
> >
>Yasser Arafat had cancer rising. He didn't seem to be overly sensitive
>about the people he killed to get to the position he was in.
>
> >Her Moon was in Libra -- her emotions were transparent,
> >rational, inclined to justice and reciprocity, also vulnerable,  and far
> >from allowing her to have any cold outer mask.
> >
>Truman Capote had moon in Libra.  He wrote "In Cold Blood."
>
> >Those who attack her  personal,
> >Lion/Cancer/Libra honesty and openess, are attacking the essential 
>ethical
> >basis of her philosophy.
> >
>Mere planetary placements alone are not going to tell you much about a
>person.  I suggest that you leave astrology to the astrologers.
>
> >5) I cannot agree that the book "Incidents in the Life of Madame 
>Blavatsky",
> >by A. P. Sinnett, is a "confused mess". In fact, it is a major source of
> >first-hand evidence on HPB's life.
> >
> >
> >
>Actually, second hand evidence. It is a biography.
>
> >It is the cause of many of HPB's letters
> >now available.  Because of this, Vera, HPB's sister, wrote important 
>texts
> >about the life of the founder of the theosophical movement.
> >
>Boris de Zirkoff deserves credit for pulling together most of the
>letters we have.  He also corrected the many mistakes in the Biography.
>See the chronologies in the Blavatsky Collected Works, which he spent 50
>years compiling.
>
> >6) As to the absence of data about HPB's life, there are two points I 
>want
> >to make.
> >
>I don't wish to get into a discussion about your notions of the
>esotericism of St. Germain, Carlos Castaneda etc.  Rather, HPB simply
>stated that her private life before she became a public person is none
>of the public's business.  Most public people fell that way, whether
>they are an occultist, actor, or astronaut.
>
> >7) Up to a few days ago, I thought Johnson to be honestly self-deluded.  
>I
> >have to apologize for that.  I have learned better. Paul makes brutal 
>though
> >disguised attacks to HPB and the Masters, but,  when confronted with the
> >facts, he tries to cover himself with the false mantle and role of a 
>poor,
> >delicate and  innocent victim.
> >
>I hope that the misreadings I have pointed out to you will help you to
>put aside your former conclusions, carefully re-read Paul's writings and
>re-evaluate them.
>
>Best wishes,
>Jerry
>
>
>carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
>
> >Dear Jerry,
> >
> >Thanks for your views.
> >
> >1) I will quote from Paul Johnson's pamplhlet "Madame Blavatsky, the 
>'veiled
> >years' " (THC, London, 1987, p. 07):
> >
> >"There are two obvious questions(...) The first concerns the relative
> >genuiness of Gurdjieff and Blavatsky as emissaries of occult orders.  
>Both
> >may have been charlatans, with Gurdjieff merely exploiting the market
> >created by H.P.B. (...)."
> >
> >Is that clear?
> >
> >In page 03 of the same pamphlet, Johnson explains "why" HPB was a fraud, 
>or
> >"had fraudulent aspects" in her behaviour and work. HPB is but a mirror 
>for
> >him as for many people.
> >
> >
> >2) Besides, I friendly challenge you to extract from Johnson any clear
> >declaration that he does NOT consider HPB a fraud, and that he considers 
>her
> >as a sincere, honest, decent woman, author and teacher. He uses the same
> >"maybe" tactics as Algeo and others, in the way he slanders HPB.  All his
> >books use that strategy. As he wants to sell his books, he will most 
>likely
> >NOT contradict himself in that. (In his "approach", Paul ignores the 1986
> >declaration of the SPR, etc.)
> >
> >3) Of course, Esoteric Philosophy cannot be understood at the level of 
>outer
> >appearances ("face value"). True. Esoteric  Philosophy  deals with the
> >occult, or essential aspects of life, which are "invisible to the eyes" 
>(to
> >use St. Exupery's expression).  Yet they are invisible NOT because they 
>are
> >false, as illustrated-ignorants like Paul Johnson and John Algeo will 
>say.
> >Essential aspects of life can be seen only by the heart.  See the 
>'Doctrine
> >of the Eye' versus the 'Doctrine of the Heart' in  "The Voice of the
> >Silence".
> >
> >g a4) As to HPB bein fraud or semi-fraud, it is enough to see her astral
> >chart. She was a Leo in the sun sign. Is Leo a sign for fraud or lies? 
>No.
> >It is the most brave and loyal sign,  directly opposite to the sometimes
> >unstable, anxious and astute Scorpio (while Scorpio as a sign also has 
>very
> >good qualities, of course).   HPB  was Cancer in her ascendant -- a
> >personality strongly emotional, sincere, loving, direct, sensitive, open,
> >compassionate, sometimes too vulnerable -- and uncapable of deceiving.  
>No
> >frauds, then. Her Moon was in Libra -- her emotions were transparent,
> >rational, inclined to justice and reciprocity, also vulnerable,  and far
> >from allowing her to have any cold outer mask.  And -- she spent most of 
>her
> >life fighting cold outer personality masks, which she called "shells'. 
>She
> >had reasons to do so.   All of her philosophy is the philosophy of 
>universal
> >truth and personal sincerity. Those who attack her  personal,
> >Lion/Cancer/Libra honesty and openess, are attacking the essential 
>ethical
> >basis of her philosophy.
> >
> >
> >5) I cannot agree that the book "Incidents in the Life of Madame 
>Blavatsky",
> >by A. P. Sinnett, is a "confused mess". In fact, it is a major source of
> >first-hand evidence on HPB's life. It is the cause of many of HPB's 
>letters
> >now available.  Because of this, Vera, HPB's sister, wrote important 
>texts
> >about the life of the founder of the theosophical movement.
> >
> >
> >6) As to the absence of data about HPB's life, there are two points I 
>want
> >to make.
> >
> >First, the life of every regular disciple will have mysterious aspects. 
>They
> >have to protect all their inner lives from "outward magnetism". See
> >Alessandro Cagliostro, Count of St. Germain and others, equally 
>mysterious,
> >and equally called "charlatans"  by the Paul-Johnsons and V. Solovyofs of
> >their times.  The libellers of Initiates enjoy selling books with their
> >fancied "revelations".
> >
> >Second, HPB, as Carlos Castaneda and other learners, trained herself for
> >some time in self-forgetfulness, which includes "erasing the signs of 
>every
> >step taken in the world". This is something
> >which people who do not understand a iota of esoteric philosophy cannot 
>ever
> >understand.
> >
> >
> >7) Up to a few days ago, I thought Johnson to be honestly self-deluded.  
>I
> >have to apologize for that.  I have learned better. Paul makes brutal 
>though
> >disguised attacks to HPB and the Masters, but,  when confronted with the
> >facts, he tries to cover himself with the false mantle and role of a 
>poor,
> >delicate and  innocent victim.
> >
> >As we have a rather long history of disguised and ambiguous attacks 
>against
> >HPB, this is not initially easy to identify.  But time will help truth as 
>it
> >always does, in this aspect as in many others.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
> >>Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >>Subject: Re: Theos-World Jerry: Teachers & Teaching
> >>Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:30:13 -0800
> >>
> >>Dear Carlos,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>When Paul Johnson writes that she lied, or implies that she lied, that
> >>>
> >>>
> >>she
> >>
> >>
> >>>was a Spy, etc. (which she denied vehemently and unendingly)  he is
> >>>
> >>>
> >>saying
> >>
> >>
> >>>that her philosophy is the philosophy of a liar, the philosophy of a
> >>>fraudulent woman.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I don't recall Paul writing that HPB "lied", though I am aware that in
> >>TMR he was careful about taking anything HPB writes at face value.
> >>Based upon my own study of HPB, I would have to agree with him on this
> >>point.  For instance, HPB's series, From the Caves and Jungles of
> >>Hindostan, is a mixture of real events and artistic elaboration. Yet, I
> >>know of more than one person who has mistakenly taken this work to be an
> >>historical account. I believe that it never was intended to be so.
> >>Rather, it is an artistic work which also contains a lot of veiled
> >>teachings. So, the point rests upon what one qualifies to be a lie. To
> >>take a more general instance, an autobiography as literature is
> >>generally thought of as nonfiction. Yet, can we really expect people to
> >>write about themselves without being selective and biased concerning
> >>events and personal experiences? Does that selectivity and biases make
> >>such writers liars? Like most everyone else, HPB  preferred that the
> >>personal details of her life remain private. Sinnett found this out when
> >>he tried to write her Biography. HPB did not want him to write it, but
> >>he pressured her until she gave in enough to answer his questions. The
> >>resulting book was a confused mess because she also did not go out of
> >>her way to make sure that what Sinnett wrote was accurate. Did that make
> >>her a liar?
> >>
> >>As for her philosophy, HPB warned her readers that her teachings had to
> >>be read with a healthy dose of metaphor.  In the SD, she points out to
> >>her readers the ridiculous mess many students made out of the globes and
> >>rounds teachings because of their over literalism.  In his writings,
> >>W.B. Yeats, one of HPB's students, recalled another student telling him
> >>that HPB told him there is another globe attached to this one at the
> >>north pole.  Yeats, who I believe, understood HPB more deeply than most
> >>of her students replied, "Oh she must be referring to some myth."  The
> >>student replied, "Oh no. If it wasn't true, then HPB wouldn't have said
> >>it."  The student, of course, completely missed Yeats' point.  When it
> >>come to spiritual truths, mythology (mythos) communicates deeper truths
> >>than literal accounts (logos) could ever do. HPB alludes to this point
> >>over and over again, yet so many students of Theosophy completely miss
> >>it. Was Homer a liar when he wrote the Odyssey? If Homer was a liar,
> >>then so was HPB.
> >>
> >>Best
> >>Jerry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Dear Jerry,
> >>>
> >>>Thanks, brother.
> >>>
> >>>Theosophy is about Truth, as you know.
> >>>
> >>>The motto of the theosophical movement is about Truth, as we know.
> >>>
> >>>HPB wrote many times that Ethics and Truthfulness are of the essence in
> >>>Theosophy.

=== message truncated ===

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 

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