Re: Theos-World Caldwell & the Criminals
Apr 18, 2006 02:09 PM
by M. Sufilight
My views are:
1.
Carlos wrote:
"Not even Daniel has the nerve to say that those slanders are more than
slanders. He says -- "maybe". He treacherously suggests the possibility. He
makes propaganda of the slanders and washes his hands. "
Is this really true Daniel ??? - Would you care to explain this any further
?
Some of us claim, that we know, that the old woman was allright in so many
respects, that the Columbs etherical heads might spin so fast that a heretic
would not be able to make them stop rotating within. No maybe's coming from
me on that one.
But we also know, that without fuss and drama, the theosophical teachings
would remain unknown.
Some would think though it was a carefully planned plot devised by the
Master Morya, Blavatsky and the Mrs. Coulomb so to make people aware of
theosophical teachings. The Christians (with the Jesuits nearby and ready)
in India was anyway already loosing influence.
But, I disagree on that version.
Someone shouted: Enemies at the Gates!
2.
My point of view - against www.blavatskyarchives.com :
What I am really against is the construction of the website
www.blavatskyarchives.com
It makes some of the - negative - articles easily accessible to search
engines, without any clear info about which - theosophical or
non-theosophical - stance the website supports.
The theosophical or non-theosophical - stance the website supports, - could
instead with advantage in such a case be -clearly - visible on the website
and not only be given to you if you choose the proper link on the page.
Or Else the website should be constructed so, that the - negative pages
could not be found by the various Search Engines. For instance using
socalled ROBOT metatags.
from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
----- Original Message -----
From: "carlosaveline" <carlosaveline@terra.com.br>
To: "theos-talk" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:42 PM
Subject: Theos-World Caldwell & the Criminals
Bill,
Thanks.
H. S. Olcott, H. P. Blavatsky, every theosophist in the 19th century, and
Vernon Harrison and other SPR members in the late 20th century have said
loud and clear that Soloviof's and Coulombs's accusations against HPB were,
and are, FALSE.
So, why pretend they "may be true"?
I am defending no "party line" here. It is just common sense.
Why would Ms. Radha Burnier agree with me, as she did, in written form, as
to the publication of these old slanders? How come Soloviof is suddenly
seen as a "historical source"? Daniel obviously knows very well that
Soloviof and the Coulimbs were criminals -- thieves and blackmailers. They
tried to extract money from the TS, and as they failed they got the money
from the Christian Missionaries and attacked HPB with forged letters etc.
So why publicizing all that stuff?
What is the aim here?
Not even Daniel has the nerve to say that those slanders are more than
slanders. He says -- "maybe". He treacherously suggests the possibility. He
makes propaganda of the slanders and washes his hands.
There are certain things in life that are well-known. Look at HPB's
astrological chart and tell me she "could have been" a fraud!
Sun in Leo; Ascendant in Cancer; Moon in Libra. And many other elements of
deep, firm sincerity and courage, but also of some vulnerability to enemies
(ascendant Cancer).
One thing is liberty of thought. Another thing is circulating the same old
falsehoods.
But if Daniel uses fraud with false names in the Internet, then he may have
something in common with the Coulombs.
I am trying to figure this out.
Regards, Carlos.
De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Cópia:
Data:Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:18:11 -0400
Assunto:Re: Theos-World Paul Johnson & Daniel Caldwell
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
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=carlosaveline&_l=1,1145391509.586263.2763.baladonia.terra.com.br,6156,Des15,Des15
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 18/04/2006 / Versão:
4.4.00/4743
Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
