Theos-World Re: To Jerry, on Pseudo Scholars
Mar 15, 2006 07:57 PM
by krsanna
Jerry -- The copy that I have is in English. Isn't that
interesting. It was written in English but was never published in
America. So much for Cold War politics. The author used the term
rock "DNA," by which I surmised he meant the mineral composition. I
searched the internet and found a copy in Ireland. I believe there
were copies in England as well.
I should mention that the Soviet writer believes that what is now
the Atlantic Ocean was once a land mass, transfigured to become an
ocean. As I said, and what is so interesting, is that the Soviet
theories seemed to embrace the idea of metamorphosis as an
evolutionary process, rather the mechanical pulling and shifting of
the continental drift theory.
And yet, continental drift has become tectonic plate theory. I've
been reading "A Crack In The Edge Of The Earth," by Simon
Winchester, but, unfortunately got sidetracked. With what? More
HPB. Winchester is a good popular science writer. I read his book
on Krakatoa. He frames geology with his human experience of it.
Research that has found identical rock in Siberia and the Western
U.S. in being done at The University of Montana. I have not seen
anything definitive published on it, and have seen just interviews
with the researcher, Dr. Sears.
If I get a chance, I'll see if I can scan from the Soviet book
chapters dealing with the core samples and inhabitants living on the
Canary Islands at the time of modern contact.
Have you read Otto Muck's book on Atlantis? His research on
America's Atlantic coast was good.
Best regards,
Krsanna
-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Krsanna,
>
> Thank you for this interesting post. I would appreciate any
references
> you have to an English translation of the 1970 work, or summaries
of
> it. Of course they, and you, are right about something like a
continent
> leaving marks. Then again, the theory has changed remarkably
since
> Fritz's '64 address and since '70 also. The new data and
consequently
> the ideas have changed so much that the oceanographers changed the
name
> of the theory to "plate tectonics." They now understand that it
is not
> the continents that move, but the plates which the continents sit
upon
> glide over a very hot intermediary layer between the plates and
the
> core. They understand the mid-Atlantic ridge to be evidence for
ocean
> floor spreading and the "ring of fire" around the Pacific basin as
> "subduction zones" where the continental plates return to the
bowels of
> the earth, only to be reformed again through volcanic activity.
Other
> evidence of plate movement is the island arcs most commonly found
in the
> Pacific. The Hawaiian island chain is the best known example.
They now
> understand that island arcs are formed by the motion of the
continental
> plates over "hot spots." The overall theory seems to be pretty
tight at
> the moment. That is, the main observations are accounted for.
>
> Still, the Soviet finding of a land mass with 12,000 year old
fresh
> water vegetation is a fascinating discovery, though, depending
upon its
> exact location, could be accounted for by the last major ice
age. The
> world's ocean depth, because of ice age cycles, vary by some 350
feet.
> They are near maximum right now. Also, the continents do rise
and sink
> to a certain extent by other actions: the weight of glaciers, a
strange
> "bulge" that has its own motion, and, in a more localized extent,
> earthquake activity.
>
> I'm interested in knowing what you mean by rock "DNA." But the
canary
> Islands and Iceland would have been part of a single land mass
about 180
> to 200 million years ago. There have been a lot of matches
already made
> between the rocks on the Eastern coast of the Americans and the
Western
> coast of Europe and Africa.
>
> Best
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> krsanna wrote:
>
> >I hope it's okay to interject into this discussion information
about
> >the mountain range that extends from Iceland in the north
southerly
> >through the mid-Atlantic. I've found some great Soviet research
in
> >that identifies between Iceland and the Canary Islands a land
mass
> >with fresh water vegetation carbon dated to about 10,000 BCE.
This
> >book was first printed in Moscow in 1970. Further, the Soviets
> >found identical rock "DNA" in the sunken area as that found in
> >Iceland.
> >
> >The Soviet theory of continental formation was very different
than
> >the American theory of continental drift. (Perhaps some of the
> >Russian members can provide more information on this.) The
Soviet
> >theory involved a metamorphosis of elements and believed that
> >something as large as a continent "drifting" would leave marks of
> >some kind. (It makes sense to me.) I'm not convinced that drift
> >adequately explains the phenomena of continental drift. Research
on
> >continental formation currently in process in the U.S. may still
> >rewrite text books.
> >
> >As a Soviet publication, the book was never published in the
U.S. I
> >found it by searching on the internet: "Atlantis," by N.F.
Zhirov.
> >Soviet sciences were more open than America's, because they
didn't
> >have to seek approval of Christian voters. The result if that
> >Americans conducted much research under cover of secret projects,
> >such as experiments with psychics and psychic warfare. Uri
Geller
> >writes about some of his experiences with American research into
> >psychism.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Krsanna
> >
> >
> >--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dear Cass,
> >>
> >>OK, now I understand what you are saying. Yes, I agree that
there
> >>
> >>
> >are
> >
> >
> >>things HPB wrote that have become verified. One of the most
> >>extraordinary passages in the SD is about a mid-Atlantic
mountain
> >>
> >>
> >range
> >
> >
> >>that begins at Iceland, moves southwards, curves around Africa
and
> >>
> >>
> >ends
> >
> >
> >>at India. At the time, it was known that there was a mid-
Atlantic
> >>
> >>
> >rise
> >
> >
> >>in elevation, but not that was a mountain range. Possibly
someone
> >>
> >>
> >could
> >
> >
> >>have speculated that the rise could be mountain range. But there
> >>
> >>
> >was no
> >
> >
> >>evidence one way of the other. Sometime early in the early
1900s
> >>
> >>
> >they
> >
> >
> >>figured out that it was probably a mountain range, but they did
> >>
> >>
> >not know
> >
> >
> >>how it ran. The fact that it runs the length of the Atlantic
and
> >>
> >>
> >curves
> >
> >
> >>around Africa was not discovered until 1957!
> >>
> >>On the other hand, you might look at D.D. Kanga's "Where
Theosophy
> >>
> >>
> >and
> >
> >
> >>Science Meet" (written in 1938). Kanga tried to interpret the
SD
> >>according to the then current science and ended up making a lot
of
> >>misreadings. I also have a tape here of a talk that Fritz Kunz
> >>
> >>
> >gave in
> >
> >
> >>1964, when the "Continental Drift" notion was first becoming
> >>
> >>
> >seriously
> >
> >
> >>considered in this country. Fritz remarked that if Continental
> >>
> >>
> >Drift
> >
> >
> >>proves to be correct, "then we may as well throw out the Secret
> >>Doctrine." I can read the SD today and spot numerous statements
> >>
> >>
> >which,
> >
> >
> >>to my understanding, are supportive of Continental Drift. But
> >>
> >>
> >during
> >
> >
> >>Kanga's time when the idea was all but unknown no one, that I am
> >>
> >>
> >aware,
> >
> >
> >>understood those passages in that way.
> >>
> >>This leads me to wonder all the more about the special nature of
> >>
> >>
> >the SD,
> >
> >
> >>its writer and her teachers. It makes the book all the more
> >>
> >>
> >exciting.
> >
> >
> >>Best
> >>Jerry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Cass Silva wrote:
> >>>
> >>>What is important for me is the information and not where or
who
> >>>
> >>>
> >the information came from. Much of it is now starting to be
> >verified by the sciences. Those ideas that were once thought of
as
> >Mumbo Jumbo have and will continue to become fact.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Cass Silva wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>What is important for me is the information and not where or
who
> >>>
> >>>
> >the information came from. Much of it is now starting to be
> >verified by the sciences. Those ideas that were once thought of
as
> >Mumbo Jumbo have and will continue to become fact.
> >
> >
> >>>Cheers
> >>>Cass
> >>>Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@> wrote: Dear Cass,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>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!
> >
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>That appears to be just the case, in my opinion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Has any scholar of theosophy discovered a "lie" within the
works
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >given to the world, i.e. Isis and SD?
> >
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>There is a lot of controversy about the accuracy and source of
> >>>
> >>>
> >HPB's
> >
> >
> >>>information. That is to be expected.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Isn't this the cogent point?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Why?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>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.
> >
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>The way I like to express it is that the Theosophical
> >>>
> >>>
> >Organizations are
> >
> >
> >>>bound hand and foot by their own karma. I see the polarization
> >>>
> >>>
> >as the
> >
> >
> >>>outcome of that karma.
> >>>
> >>>Best,
> >>>Jerry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Cass Silva wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>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 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>=== message truncated ===
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>---------------------------------
> >>>Yahoo! Mail
> >>>Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
> >>>
> >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
