Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00363)

carlosaveline wrote:
> Dear Friends, 
> And then you have Paul Johnson with his brilliant "theories" against the theosophical movement. 
>   
Carlos, what is your motivation in bringing this up again?
> Strangely enough, last February  Paul Johnson denounced Daniel Caldwell at Theos-talk as a "troller" who invented several aliases or "internet-personifications" in order to attack the ULT, to attack Paul himself, etc.  Once Johnson made his points with regard to Daniel, our slanders-editor diesappeared from Theos-talk with no explanations.  Or at least spent some time writing here under other names. 
>   
I believe that Paul gave a very clear explanation of why he was leaving 
theos-talk.  Perhaps you have forgotten?
> I am still waiting for Daniel's answer to the texts by Paul Johnson on him.
> This is rather important.  In case Daniel actually forged the existence of persons like "David Green", or "Terry Hobbes", etc. (which he did not deny so far), he might also be inclined to make propaganda of other forgers, like Sololoviof, etc.  
>   
A person who sees beyond the superficial realizes that Daniel has 
answered this question very clearly.  Another person, who only looks at 
the surface of things, will not see the answer.
> After all, if that is true,  the Coulombs and Soloviof could be considered his 19th century coleagues. 
> As we know, Ethics is of the essence if anyone wants to study Theosophy.  
> I hope Daniel will answer to Paul Johnson's accusations of internet-fraud, and I also hope he will abandon his propaganda about the falsehoods created by  the enemies of the theosophical movement, who seems to have no respect for facts.  
The overarching FACT of HPB's efforts is that a man should grow to think 
independently  for himself.  As often as Daniel and I have disagreed, he 
has never insinuated that I should take his word for anything.  He has 
never implied that his understanding of theosophy was THE 
understanding.  He has never said, "read this, but not that.  Consider 
these authors as legitimate but not these others."  When Daniel makes 
critical comments about THE MASTERS REVEALED, I know that he has 
actually read the book.  To his credit, he does not then say, "I have 
read the book and it is flawed, so you don't need to read the book."  I 
believe that Daniel understands that every man must learn to think and 
discern for himself the wisdom inherent in every representation of 
truth.  This learning process is sometimes difficult as old 
well-accepted thought patterns are challenged again and again, but the 
difficulty of such a life  is far better than the stupor of never had 
thought for oneself in any significant sense.

Carlos, I do see evidence that you also think for yourself 
occasionally.  Where you and I would disagree, is that you would have 
others take your conclusions and observations as Fact, rather than have 
them experience the theosophical process of discerning fact from fiction 
for themselves.


peace within,


bill