Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00345)

==============================================
Here. . . is Daniel making propaganda of 
well-known slanders against H.P. Blavatsky, which 
he calls "firsthand testimonies".
In fact, they are second-hand and well-known lies.
==============================================

Now compare Aveline's statement with that of
Walter Carrithers:

==============================================
...Emma Coulomb's pamphlet...takes precedence over 
all others in standing at the very heart of the controversy 
raised by the Coulombs, comprising as it does the FIRSTHAND 
unadulterated TESTIMONY of the chief accusers, together with 
documentary "proofs" adduced for their claims. 
==============================================

Caps added.

In several emails Carlos tries to tell readers that
Emma Coulomb's account is not testimony, is not firsthand
testimony....

To pretend that this is not Coulomb's testimony is downright
silly.  And to try to hide it and say that it should only be
available to researchers or "experienced" Theosophists is
in my opinion also equally silly.  Oh, heavens, inquirers and
new students might be confused and not be able to handle it,
reminds me of some of the excuses I've heard before for
keeping Tillett's book on Leadbeater in a special place not
easily available in a Theosophical Library.  I once was told by
a librarian of a certain Theosophical library that the Tillett
biography was kept in a reference area away from the general
books because inquirers and new students might be confused
by the contents, and OBTW, the book is very one sided and only
gives the slanders against CWL....

Sound familiar????

OBTW, below is a link to Emma Coulomb's testimony about
the Masters:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/coulombandhodgson.htm#Coulomb

Daniel
http://hpb.cc









--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Notice that in what Carlos writes below
> he does NOT address the issue concerning
> the reprint of the entire Coulomb pamphlet
> by the Edmonton Theosophical Society.
> 
> An inquiring mind might also ask:
> 
> IF....IF Daniel is circulating "slanders," IS the 
> ETS ALSO guilty of ciculating
> "slanders" by publishing the ENTIRE Coulomb pamphlet
> and with NO WORD (not even in the FINAL pages) warning the modern 
> reader about the content of this "disgusting" pamphlet???
> 
> These are the kinds of questions one should be asking as
> one tries to understand Carlos' reasoning in this matter
> and the validity of his contentions concerning this subject.
> 
> I hope Carlos does NOT have a double standard in assessing and 
> judging such matters.
> 
> Remember:
> 
> "...what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
> 
> Personally I do NOT believe I was ciculating "slanders" and I do
> not believe that ETS was circulating "slanders".  Both TPH by 
> publishing my book and the ETS by reprinting the Coulomb pamphlet 
> were both performing a needed service of providing interested 
> individuals with relevant historical documents.  It is for each 
> individual reading these two books to determine for themselves the 
> truthfulness or falsity of the statements made.
> 
> And of course, it IS Emma Coulomb's TESTIMONY even though Carlos 
> apparently wants to play a word game here.
> 
> I close this posting with a quote about the Coulomb pamphlet from 
my 
> late friend Walter A. Carrithers, Jr. (who wrote under the assumed 
> name of Adlai E. Waterman):
> 
> ==================================================
> It is safe to calculate that for every ten thousand persons who 
have 
> heard and believe that Richard Hodgson "exposed" H.P. Blavatsky as 
a 
> fraud and imposter, not more than one has read his "expose;" and, 
> that for every thousand of his readers, hardly one has ever seen 
> Emma Coulomb's pamphlet.  
> 
> And yet, by logic and every rule of common sense, the latter 
> document takes precedence over all others in standing at the very 
> heart of the controversy raised by the Coulombs, comprising as it 
> does the firsthand unadulterated TESTIMONY of the chief accusers, 
> together with documentary "proofs" adduced for their claims.  
> 
> Yet, strange to say, practically no attention was paid to this 
> PRICELESS PAMPHLET - least of all by indignant Theosophists [like 
> Carlos?????] who put no stock in what Mme. Coulomb might have to 
> say! -, not until, that is, the appearance in 1937 of Mrs. 
Hastings' 
> booklet, Defence of Madame Blavatsky (Volume II) The "Coulomb 
> Pamphlet".  Unfortunately, Mrs. Hastings did not live to complete 
> her promising study of the case. 
> =====================================================
> 
> I have added caps to Walter's own words in describing the Coulomb 
> pamphlet:
> 
> TESTIMONY  and PRICELESS PAMPHLET  !!!!
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
> <carlosaveline@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Friends,
> > 
> > 
> > I don't see contradiction in my two paragraphs quoted by Daniel. 
> > 
> > Indeed, in his disgusting and sad book, there is "no word from 
> the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting he is publishing documents 
> which have no trace of truth in them whatsoever".
> > 
> > He only says that those texts are not likely to be true, or 
> something similar, and thus he follows the well-known "maybe 
> policy". 
> > 
> > And even this he writes in a way which the average reader will 
> most likely NOT SEE. 
> > 
> > John Algeo did the same thing with the HPB Letters.  Some 20 per 
> cent of the texts published by Algeo in his "HPB Letters" volume 
I --
> - are fake. 
> > 
> > Caldwell was more modest -- but then,  he was  the pioneer in 
> publishing semi-unidentified lies and libels as if they were part 
> of  the theosophical literature. 
> > 
> > In the introduction of his unfortunate boook, Caldwell 
> calls "testimonies" those open and shameful lies.
> > 
> > No honest editor or Historian can do such a thing.   I still 
hope 
> in the future Caldwell will realize that  this is not the proper 
> thing to do. 
> > 
> > Best regards,  Carlos Cardoso Aveline 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > Cópia:
> > 
> > Data:Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:33:45 -0000
> > 
> > Assunto:Theos-World "No proper identification": Do we have a 
good 
> example with the ETS reprint???
> > 
> > > Readers,
> > > 
> > > Please notice the progression here:
> > > 
> > > Originally Carlos wrote:
> > > 
> > > "In the disgusting volume The Esoteric World of Madame 
> Blavatsky —
> > > while believing the editor has selected truthful documents — 
the
> > > reader will bump into many of the lies written against HPB. 
> There he
> > > will see two texts by Emma Coulomb (pp. 35-36 and pp. 210-215) 
> with
> > > no word from the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting he is 
> publishing
> > > documents which have no trace of truth in them whatsoever."
> > > 
> > > Notice Carlos' words:
> > > 
> > > "....no word from the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting ...."
> > > 
> > > Now after I have pointed out repeatedly that this is simply 
not 
> true 
> > > by quoting directly from my book several statements showing 
that 
> > > what Carlos wrote is not accurate, Carlos apparently backs off 
> from 
> > > his "NO WORD" stance and writes instead:
> > > 
> > > "Only in the final pages of his sad book he made commentaries 
> > > admitting those 'texts' were likely not authentic."
> > > 
> > > Well I guess we should be happy with his apparent concession 
and 
> > > retraction of his original statement!!!
> > > 
> > > But now we must puzzle over his definition of FINAL in the 
> > > phrase "the FINAL pages"....
> > > 
> > > because more than 100 pages BEFORE the final pages of the book 
I 
> > > wrote at the appropriate place about the Coulomb attack having 
> no 
> > > solid foundation....
> > > 
> > > Anyway moving on....
> > > 
> > > If Carlos is really "upset" because I gave "no proper 
> > > identification" about the Coulomb testimony, then is the 
> following 
> > > example another example of what Carlos would consider "no 
proper 
> > > identification."
> > > 
> > > In 1995, the Edmonton Theosophical Society (who is also the 
> > > publisher of Fohat where Carlos originally wrote his above 
> quoted 
> > > words about my book) REPRINTED the ENTIRE 112 pages of Madame 
> > > Coulomb's "disgusting" (to use Aveline's description) 
pamphlet. 
> > > 
> > > They published the ENTIRE pamphlet and sold it. A 
correspondent 
> of 
> > > mine originally wrote me informing me that he had bought this 
> > > reprint and I in turn bought copies although I had a copy of 
the 
> > > original. 
> > > 
> > > Nowhere in the reprint by ETS is there ONE WORD warning 
today's 
> > > readers about the contents of this volume....not even in the 
> FINAL 
> > > pages of this reprint!!
> > > 
> > > Maybe Carlos should dash off a letter to FOHAT and ETS telling 
> them 
> > > that they should have done differently....that they should not 
> have 
> > > reprinted this DISGUSTING volume...and with "no proper 
> > > identification." !!!
> > > 
> > > Daniel
> > > http://hpb.cc
> > > 
> >
>