Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00077)

Carlos,
I was responding to your argument, that Daniel 
produces hate, is lying and slanders in a jesuitic 
way etc., while I observed that his motive is to 
find out the truth and share his knowledge with 
others.
My other point was that you force Daneil to proof 
that  he is innocent, while I would rather say 
that it's up to you, that he guilty.
Here you are ironically using the same logic as 
Annie Besant did in the so-called Judge case.

And as to your new argument below, that Daniel is 
using details to exaggerate differences, the same 
could be said from you, although I never observed 
that he exaggerates differences, but rather breaks 
taboos, clearifies differences in the way that he 
considers both sides.
If any theosophical student feels discriminated by 
logic, argument, clear sources etc. that it is not 
the fault of Daniel or any other student, but the 
fault of that Theosophist who sticks on his/her 
little personality.

You get no unity between theosophists with errors, 
falsehoods or lies as its basic. Then you a 
church. And stop thinking is really the Jesuitical 
way.

I find that your argument that Daniel deals with 
differences between leading personalities it 
wrong. He deals more with the differences between 
the presentation and interpretation of facts or 
alleged facts.
That is really theosophical. HPB did exactly the 
same. OTOH, an observer could with the same or 
more right sqay, that it is rather you and not 
Daniel, who deals with personalities.

Often you are attacking him personally and ignore 
his argument instead the other way round.

One example that Daniel is a honest researcher is 
that he once made the little mistake in publishing 
on his website my name with a paraphrase of mine. 
I critizied it, because I could not identify 
myself with it and found it misleading and I 
begged him to drop my name. He then in return did 
it. Why did he do it??

Furthermore there are many myths the ULT has 
created and upholds them until today. ULT 
publishes falsehoods about Purucker and Tingley. 
Not the person who quotes these ULT texts is 
guilty, but the persons who wrote and spread these 
falsehoods.

To use an example: If someone robbs a bank, runs 
out and a policeman runs after him to catch him, 
would you also say, the policeman uses Jeusitical 
methods, deals with the personality, breaks the 
harmony and acts unbrotherly?
Frank


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "carlosaveline" <carlosaveline@terra.com.br>
To: "theos-talk" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 9:45 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: CALDWELL & JESUITS



Frank, Friends,

Look at the way Caldwell constantly uses small 
details to exaggerate
differences between leading PERSONALITIES 
belonging to different
theosophical groups.

Daniel, unfortunately, rotates too much around 
personalities.  I am inviting him to see the unity 
of the movement; to get rid ot fancies and false 
initiates like Leadbeater (Daniel already likes 
Tillett's book on Leadbeater...);  and to help the 
movement take its next step -- to care for mankind 
and to study real Theosophy and its application in 
daily life.

I invite Daniel to stop circulating the old 
slandes which he knows all too well to be pure 
lies.

I hope I clarified my point.  I feel the same with 
regard to Paul Johnson, Katinka Hesselink, John 
Algeo and others who propagate falsehoods.

I acknowledge the fact that historians like 
Michael Gomes and Leslie Price are NOT in the 
business ofcirculating lies against W.Q. Judge or 
H. P. Blavatsky.

Best regards,  Carlos Cardoso Aveline