Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00760)

Sorry Robert,  my motherlanguage is Dutch and with a Betahead it is 
not easy to put in different languages.However I try to follow a lot 
of important messages.
My reaction was more to Eldon for saying that everywhere there are 
people making mass in between.
Easy to look over or deny that.
Best is that everyone feel free to support the club.


Which mistake made Olcott?
I don't know for he was long for my time.

CHRISTINA










--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Christina,
> 
> I must preface what I have to say with the fact that I have not 
quite
> caught on to the rhythm of your english and may consequently have
> misunderstood your points.  If that is so, I suspect that what I 
have to
> say will apply to others who hold the beliefs that I may be 
unfairly
> projecting onto you.
> 
> Theosophists will debate many things about the Ancient Wisdom 
Tradition.
> For instance there is a big debate going on right now about Volume 
III
> of the SD in the pages of theos-talk.  It is amusing and 
instructive as
> to how the debate is being conducted.  Instead of detailed and 
laborious
> investigation of content to see whether it is in the spirit and 
style of
> the first two volumes, we see a debate that seems to hinge on 
whether
> the volume can be more rightly attritbuted to HPB or to AB and 
Mead.  If
> I understand you correctly, you would see this debate to be about
> nothing because people should be able to read Volume III and 
decide for
> themselves whether there is anything of worth in it or not, and 
what
> that might be.  Theosophists can think for themselves so why all 
the
> fighting over nothing?  In the strictest sense, of course, you are
> correct.  However, I would argue that all those involved in the 
debate
> understand this fact, therefore the debate must be about something 
else.
> 
> The something else that I suspect you and many at this site 
perceive is
> that it is a simple fight between fundamentalist followers of this 
or
> that school of theosophy and certain free-thinking scientifically
> trained researchers who are expressing a certain freedom of 
thought that
> we, as theosophists,  should not be afraid to entertain.  That 
being so,
> theosophists should simply drop all this arguing about the past and
> focus on the present, the fundamentalists need to grow up and not 
worry
> about what other theosophists think.  This I would argue is where 
you
> and many others are in error.
> 
> I quoted earlier the following from Judge:
> 
> >If she hoodwinked with one message, all may be the same -bogus-and
> >the great force and strength derived from a firm belief in Masters
> >will be swept away, because she, their first messenger to us, is 
made
> >out a fraud. All this is precisely what Olcott et al wish to do. 
He
> >cannot tolerate the idea that H.P.B. was greater than himself, so 
he
> >throws around her memory the dirty cloak of tricky and 
irresponsible
> >mediumship. That done, anything can be explained and anything
> >accounted for.
> >
> >Well, for my part, I will not accept such nonsense; Col. Olcott 
being
> >incompetent to decide on Mahatmic messages on occult lines, and 
being
> >a disciple of H.P.B. is certainly much below her. His present
> >utterance settles nothing about her character, about her 
mediumship
> >or about the message; but it does serve to brand him as an ingrate
> >and to place him plainly in view as one who calls that great 
teacher
> >a fraud and medium.
> >
> >Now let the next and the next come on, so that we may have the 
lines
> >clearly drawn and the hypocrisies unveiled.
> 
> see:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33481
> 
> Judge is saying that logically, if HPB is a fraud and a medium, 
ANYTHING
> AT ALL can be argued once you allow this possibility to be 
entertained. 
> This is simple logic and is not at question.  It could easily be 
argued
> that the fraud, HPB, was a Jesuit sent to undermine the esoteric
> movement before it even began.  Why not?  Allegations will of 
course be
> made against HPB by her many enemies, but it is important that
> Thesophists defend her and not allow these allegations to be 
entertained
> within the Society.
> 
> Judge then goes on to say that Olcott's words brand him "as an 
ingrate".
> We have read again and again that the Masters cannot be accused of
> ingratitude.  There is something about the esoteric philosophy that
> makes ingratitude an anathema.  All theosophists owe HPB (and 
Judge) a
> debt of gratitude.  To stand by and allow her name to be sullied by
> unfounded accusations is wrong.  If the accusations are founded, 
then we
> say nothing.  The fact that none of the awful accusations thrown 
at HPB
> or Judge have ever been proven makes it doubtful that they ever 
will. 
> So where are we?
> 
> We are at the point where Judge writes, "let the next and the next 
come
> on, so that we may have the lines clearly drawn and the hypocrisies
> unveiled."  It is sheer hypocrisy for theosophists to demonstrate
> ingratitude towards another.  All theosophists are in a group that
> encourage debate about religion, science, and philosophy.  There 
are no
> creeds endorsed by theosophy.  As such there is no reason to 
question
> the motivations of another.  We all have our motivations and yet 
we can
> still be theosophists.  Why?  Because we stick to talking about 
topics. 
> The hypocrisy that Judge alludes to is that some theosophists want 
to
> make HPB, herself, a topic.  As soon as you do this you destroy the
> Theosophical Movement.  Logically, anything can be argued.  Yet, if
> there are no established creeds, what can the motivation be for 
making
> HPB a topic?  Logically, only the destruction of the Society.  
This is
> why some theosophists are so passionate about this debate.  I think
> other theosophists sense this fact and try to steer clear of this 
debate
> as they cannot win it.
> 
> Theosophists have not created a Society that delves into the 
foibles of
> others.  In fact, despite our foibles, we can still be 
theosophists. 
> Our foibles play no part in the ongoing debate.  If anyone tries to
> attack you through your own personal inadequacies, this is the one 
cause
> for expulsion from the Society.  Attacks of this nature poison the
> Society.  If you look at the Theosophical Motto and its 
Objectives, it
> is clear that the Society was established as the one place where 
people
> could debate free from personal attack.  As a brotherhood it was
> expected that others would rush to your aid if you were attacked.  
It is
> this lesson that theosophists have not learned, and if we do not 
learn
> it now it may be another 100 years and untold huamn suffering 
before we
> get another chance.
> 
> Christina, Olcott made a mistake.  I believe that he came to 
understand
> his mistake.  What is important for the future of the Theosophical
> Movement, if there is to be one, is that the rest of us try to
> understand the lessons our President-founder paid so dearly to 
learn. 
> We all owe him a debt of gratitude.  If we learn and understand 
this,
> then the internal fighting will stop immediately.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, christina leestemaker
> <christinaleestemaker@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Eldon
> >
> >   For a lot of years i see the same actions in lodges, only in 
more
> delicate way, but all the same.
> >   Looks like they have not understand lectures and stay coloring 
all
> in the personal fields.Also the overflow on messages of some kind 
of
> persons, that looks like supporting and competition in the race 
for"
> truth".
> >
> >   But everywhere the same.
> >   More reason for take some rest in reading ,what looks like "
> esoteric soap."
> >
> >   New millenium does not need to look back at old personal feuds 
of
> any writer or teacher.
> >
> >   Everyone in this generation have enough brains to think for 
him or
> herself.
> >
> >   Also to ignore or to find something behind that  less 
important 
> messages.
> >   Otherwise I don't understand the projections of people, but 
they are
> doing and let them, that teach to see through it.
> >
> >   The only thing we need is the true insight and the essence of 
the
> ancient wisdom.
> >   What everyone integrate on his or her own level of 
consciousness.
> >
> >   For that are happely enough lectures published on the web and 
not to
> forget the books we can read.
> >
> >
> >   All groups are busy with enjoying themselves as a kind of
> entertainment , as far as I can see.
> >   Those who are calling names, that is more telling about the 
persons
> self.
> >
> >   best regards, Christina
> >
> >
> > Eldon B Tucker eldon_tucker@ wrote:
> >   Since my message Saturday, there have been more problems with 
the
> > list. For anyone that wishes to continue participating on the 
list,
> > this has to stop.
> >
> > What I've noticed (not necessarily a complete list of incidents) 
is:
> >
> > Vince called Daniel evil. Vince called Carlos dumb. Frank 
mentions
> > Carlos "works with suggestions, make believe and slander, 
ignores and
> > twists facts." Frank later mentions to Carlos, "any sane 
theosophist
> > cannot fail to come to the conclusion that you are NOT a fool."
> > Another note says, "the Dugpas are behind you. They eat your 
soul."
> > Vince then returns to say "Daniel is evil."
> >
> > Although some running battles have traumatized the list a few 
months
> > ago causing some people to leave the list, they are in the past. 
If
> > anything gets out of hand, the thread of discussion will be 
closed
> > before such could happen again.
> >
> > The request that people stop the name-calling applies to 
everyone. It
> > does not mean that some people behave themselves while others 
lash out
> > seeking to satisfy any pent up anger, hostility, or ill will 
that they
> > still carry. There are not any exceptions based upon the number 
of
> > good or bad messages that anyone has written over the past few 
months.
> >
> > This is my last warning.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Ring'em or ping'em. Make  PC-to-phone calls as low as 1�/min 
with
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>