Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00353)

Daniel is wrong this time.=20

It is obvious that  any sound historical research should establish whether =
documents are authentic of fake.

Once it is established documents are fake, there is no reason to keep think=
ing of them night and day. One should leave them aside and go ahead.

Instead of doing this, Daniel is trying to un-do Carrithers work.

Carrithers had the stomach to go through all these analytical work with reg=
ard to the Coulombs slanders, and played a keu role in having the Society f=
or Psychical Research changing its position.  In 1986, in part due to Carri=
thers's efforts, the SPR did abandon all its charges of fraud against H.P.B=
.  That meant the Coulombs were abandoned as source os historical facts or =
testimonies.=20

Daniel is trying to go the other way around.  He is attempting to absorb th=
ose lies into the theosophical literature.=20

As to "keeping certain things (slanders) to experienced theosophists", anyo=
ne who reads me at Theos-talk can see I am open and frank, so this accusati=
on does not stick.  I just recognize the basic fact that forgeries are no d=
ocuments and cannot be accepted in theosophical books.=20

The one who does not talk about Gregory Tillett's important biography of=20
C. W. Leadbeater is Daniel Caldwell.=20=20

I see Daniel writing much more about slanders against HPB, and describing t=
hem as "testimonies", than about the true facts about C. W. Leadbeater, or =
James Wedgwood, etc.=20=20

Regards,  Carlos.



De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

C=F3pia:

Data:Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:23:35 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World Aveline Versus Carrithers???? & the Tillett biography, =
etc.

> Carlos Aveline writes:
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Here. . . is Daniel making propaganda of=20
> well-known slanders against H.P. Blavatsky, which=20
> he calls "firsthand testimonies".
> In fact, they are second-hand and well-known lies.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> Now compare Aveline's statement with that of
> Walter Carrithers:
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> ...Emma Coulomb's pamphlet...takes precedence over=20
> all others in standing at the very heart of the controversy=20
> raised by the Coulombs, comprising as it does the FIRSTHAND=20
> unadulterated TESTIMONY of the chief accusers, together with=20
> documentary "proofs" adduced for their claims.=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> Caps added.
>=20
> In several emails Carlos tries to tell readers that
> Emma Coulomb's account is not testimony, is not firsthand
> testimony....
>=20
> 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....
>=20
> Sound familiar????
>=20
> OBTW, below is a link to Emma Coulomb's testimony about
> the Masters:
>=20
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/coulombandhodgson.htm#Coulomb
>=20
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"=20
> 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.
> >=20
> > An inquiring mind might also ask:
> >=20
> > IF....IF Daniel is circulating "slanders," IS the=20
> > 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=20
> > reader about the content of this "disgusting" pamphlet???
> >=20
> > 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.
> >=20
> > I hope Carlos does NOT have a double standard in assessing and=20
> > judging such matters.
> >=20
> > Remember:
> >=20
> > "...what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
> >=20
> > Personally I do NOT believe I was ciculating "slanders" and I do
> > not believe that ETS was circulating "slanders". Both TPH by=20
> > publishing my book and the ETS by reprinting the Coulomb pamphlet=20
> > were both performing a needed service of providing interested=20
> > individuals with relevant historical documents. It is for each=20
> > individual reading these two books to determine for themselves the=20
> > truthfulness or falsity of the statements made.
> >=20
> > And of course, it IS Emma Coulomb's TESTIMONY even though Carlos=20
> > apparently wants to play a word game here.
> >=20
> > I close this posting with a quote about the Coulomb pamphlet from=20
> my=20
> > late friend Walter A. Carrithers, Jr. (who wrote under the assumed=20
> > name of Adlai E. Waterman):
> >=20
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
> > It is safe to calculate that for every ten thousand persons who=20
> have=20
> > heard and believe that Richard Hodgson "exposed" H.P. Blavatsky as=20
> a=20
> > fraud and imposter, not more than one has read his "expose;" and,=20
> > that for every thousand of his readers, hardly one has ever seen=20
> > Emma Coulomb's pamphlet.=20
> >=20
> > And yet, by logic and every rule of common sense, the latter=20
> > document takes precedence over all others in standing at the very=20
> > heart of the controversy raised by the Coulombs, comprising as it=20
> > does the firsthand unadulterated TESTIMONY of the chief accusers,=20
> > together with documentary "proofs" adduced for their claims.=20
> >=20
> > Yet, strange to say, practically no attention was paid to this=20
> > PRICELESS PAMPHLET - least of all by indignant Theosophists [like=20
> > Carlos?????] who put no stock in what Mme. Coulomb might have to=20
> > say! -, not until, that is, the appearance in 1937 of Mrs.=20
> Hastings'=20
> > booklet, Defence of Madame Blavatsky (Volume II) The "Coulomb=20
> > Pamphlet". Unfortunately, Mrs. Hastings did not live to complete=20
> > her promising study of the case.=20
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >=20
> > I have added caps to Walter's own words in describing the Coulomb=20
> > pamphlet:
> >=20
> > TESTIMONY and PRICELESS PAMPHLET !!!!
> >=20
> > Daniel
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline"=20
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Friends,
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > I don't see contradiction in my two paragraphs quoted by Daniel.=20
> > >=20
> > > Indeed, in his disgusting and sad book, there is "no word from=20
> > the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting he is publishing documents=20
> > which have no trace of truth in them whatsoever".
> > >=20
> > > He only says that those texts are not likely to be true, or=20
> > something similar, and thus he follows the well-known "maybe=20
> > policy".=20
> > >=20
> > > And even this he writes in a way which the average reader will=20
> > most likely NOT SEE.=20
> > >=20
> > > John Algeo did the same thing with the HPB Letters. Some 20 per=20
> > cent of the texts published by Algeo in his "HPB Letters" volume=20
> I --
> > - are fake.=20
> > >=20
> > > Caldwell was more modest -- but then, he was the pioneer in=20
> > publishing semi-unidentified lies and libels as if they were part=20
> > of the theosophical literature.=20
> > >=20
> > > In the introduction of his unfortunate boook, Caldwell=20
> > calls "testimonies" those open and shameful lies.
> > >=20
> > > No honest editor or Historian can do such a thing. I still=20
> hope=20
> > in the future Caldwell will realize that this is not the proper=20
> > thing to do.=20
> > >=20
> > > Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > >=20
> > > Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > >=20
> > > C=F3pia:
> > >=20
> > > Data:Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:33:45 -0000
> > >=20
> > > Assunto:Theos-World "No proper identification": Do we have a=20
> good=20
> > example with the ETS reprint???
> > >=20
> > > > Readers,
> > > >=20
> > > > Please notice the progression here:
> > > >=20
> > > > Originally Carlos wrote:
> > > >=20
> > > > "In the disgusting volume The Esoteric World of Madame=20
> > Blavatsky =97
> > > > while believing the editor has selected truthful documents =97=20
> the
> > > > reader will bump into many of the lies written against HPB.=20
> > There he
> > > > will see two texts by Emma Coulomb (pp. 35-36 and pp. 210-215)=20
> > with
> > > > no word from the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting he is=20
> > publishing
> > > > documents which have no trace of truth in them whatsoever."
> > > >=20
> > > > Notice Carlos' words:
> > > >=20
> > > > "....no word from the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting ...."
> > > >=20
> > > > Now after I have pointed out repeatedly that this is simply=20
> not=20
> > true=20
> > > > by quoting directly from my book several statements showing=20
> that=20
> > > > what Carlos wrote is not accurate, Carlos apparently backs off=20
> > from=20
> > > > his "NO WORD" stance and writes instead:
> > > >=20
> > > > "Only in the final pages of his sad book he made commentaries=20
> > > > admitting those 'texts' were likely not authentic."
> > > >=20
> > > > Well I guess we should be happy with his apparent concession=20
> and=20
> > > > retraction of his original statement!!!
> > > >=20
> > > > But now we must puzzle over his definition of FINAL in the=20
> > > > phrase "the FINAL pages"....
> > > >=20
> > > > because more than 100 pages BEFORE the final pages of the book=20
> I=20
> > > > wrote at the appropriate place about the Coulomb attack having=20
> > no=20
> > > > solid foundation....
> > > >=20
> > > > Anyway moving on....
> > > >=20
> > > > If Carlos is really "upset" because I gave "no proper=20
> > > > identification" about the Coulomb testimony, then is the=20
> > following=20
> > > > example another example of what Carlos would consider "no=20
> proper=20
> > > > identification."
> > > >=20
> > > > In 1995, the Edmonton Theosophical Society (who is also the=20
> > > > publisher of Fohat where Carlos originally wrote his above=20
> > quoted=20
> > > > words about my book) REPRINTED the ENTIRE 112 pages of Madame=20
> > > > Coulomb's "disgusting" (to use Aveline's description)=20
> pamphlet.=20
> > > >=20
> > > > They published the ENTIRE pamphlet and sold it. A=20
> correspondent=20
> > of=20
> > > > mine originally wrote me informing me that he had bought this=20
> > > > reprint and I in turn bought copies although I had a copy of=20
> the=20
> > > > original.=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Nowhere in the reprint by ETS is there ONE WORD warning=20
> today's=20
> > > > readers about the contents of this volume....not even in the=20
> > FINAL=20
> > > > pages of this reprint!!
> > > >=20
> > > > Maybe Carlos should dash off a letter to FOHAT and ETS telling=20
> > them=20
> > > > that they should have done differently....that they should not=20
> > have=20
> > > > reprinted this DISGUSTING volume...and with "no proper=20
> > > > identification." !!!
> > > >=20
> > > > Daniel
> > > > http://hpb.cc
> > > >=20
> > >
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=3Dcarlosavel=
ine&_l=3D1,1145377426.428052.29435.arrino.terra.com.br,13336,Des15,Des15
>=20
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 17/04/2006 / Vers=E3o: 4.4.=
00/4742
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
>=20


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