Theos-World Re: To Jerry, on Pseudo Scholars
Mar 15, 2006 09:42 PM
by krsanna
Jerry -- On continental formation theories, Americans believe (or
did) that the oceans have always existed. The Soviet author quoted
an American scientist, who, speaking at a conference, essentially
said, "The oceans are where God created them, right where they've
been since the beginning." (My paraphrase.) You can imagine the
Soviet had a field day with that American theory. The volcanic
eruptions, according to the Soviet theory, was an intermediate
event, but not the initial creational cause.
Otto Muck a German engineer whose hobby was Atlantology, and his
family published the book after his death. The Soviet author refers
to Muck's research, by the way.
Muck found much evidence for the existence and subsidence of
Atlantis. At the moment, I can't recall if Muck talked about
anomalies of marine vegetation and eels on America's east coast.
But, anomalies in these are factual.
Muck believed that Atlantis' sinking was associated with meteor
hits, and demonstrated evidence of what looks like a massive
meteorite field along the coast of South Carolina. This was fairly
compelling because he was using aerial photos. He believed that
parts of America's east coast recently sank while other parts rose
as a result of the meteor hits and Atlantis sinking.
THE ANDES
"Atlantis: The Andes Solution" (John Bashford-Snell) is another book
that has great photographic evidence, but I believe the author's
interpretation is way off base. He located a site in the Andes
using satellite photographs -- he had worked in aerial intelligence
in the Army. In the satellite photos concentric circles and canals
cover an area approximately the size of Poseidon, as described by
Plato. When the authohr visited the site, the canals looked like
little valleys. In the satellite photos, however, the regular
positioning and sizes of the concentric circles are apparent. He
believed that the sinking of Atlantis had caused the Andes to rise.
Assuming that a global culture anciently existed, as I believe it
did, the similarity between one large center and another would not
be surprising. The Andes as an ancient center for "The Brothers"
would be a good candidate for a city of that nature. I believe
Plato's description was pretty good for several reasons.
ANTARCTIC
Another location that can be plausibly interpreted as man-made
construction because of regularity of concentric circles separated
by canals is beneath the ice in the Antarctic. I can't remember
precisely how it was identified, but it involved a study of the
Antarctic.
It is feasible that a global culture could have used signature
design in large centers during the early part of the fourth round,
which an advanced culture lived among humans on earth. Zecharia
Sitchin locates a scientific base at the Antarctic in his Earth
Chronicles.
The Antarctic site is south of Easter Island, and that's another
interesting feature. My TimeStar geometry identifies Easter Island
by latitude and longitude.
Thar ya go.
-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Krsanna,
>
> >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.
> >
> Interesting idea. The problem is that the Atlantic ocean floor
itself
> (under the sediments) is made up of the volcanic matter that came
from
> the mid Atlantic ridge. Cores have been made on either side of
the
> ridge and oceanographers have found that the volcanic matter gets
older
> at they get further from the ridge. According to current dating
> methods, the volcanic matter nearest the Eastern and Western
shores of
> the Atlantic date to about 180,000 years.
>
> >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.
> >
> I think there is room for both. The absorption and recreation of
> continents through subduction and volcanism strikes me as a kind
of
> metamorphosis. Though, it seems that your Soviet writer had a
different
> idea about it.
>
> >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.
> >
> Yes, please. I am especially interested in those Canary island
inhabitants.
>
> >Have you read Otto Muck's book on Atlantis? His research on
> >America's Atlantic coast was good.
> >
> No, I'm afraid I haven't. What is his conclusions on Atlantis?
>
> Best,
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
> krsanna wrote:
>
> >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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
