Theos-Talk Archives (June 2006 Message tt00194)

WHO SUPPORTS THE ATTACKS TO THE MOVEMENT? 


Dear Friends, 

The 1884 Annual Convention of the Theosophical Society, in Adyar, 
appointed a broad Committee to advise H.P. Blavatsky as to the best 
course of action with regard to the Coulombs' attacks against the 
movement. 

Those were the same attacks which Mr. Daniel Caldwell and Mr. John 
Algeo have been publicizing for some years now.

The Chairman of the 1884 Committee was Mr. Norendra Nath Sen. Its 
secretary, Alfred Cooper-Oakley.This is their Report, dated 
December 28, 1884: 

"Resolved: That the letters published in the Christian College 
Magazine under the heading `Collapse of Koothoomi' are only a 
pretext to injure the cause of Theosophy, and as these letters 
necessarily appear absurd to those who are acquainted with our 
philosophy & facts, and as those who are not acquainted with those 
facts could not have their opinion changed even by a judicial 
verdict given in favour of Madame Blavatsky, therefore, it is the 
unanimous opin ion of this Committee that Mdme Blavatsky should not 
prosecute her defamers in a court of law."

[Signed:] "Alfred Cooper-Oakley (Secretary), Norendraneth Sen 
(Chairman), P. Iyaloo Naidu, Franz Hartmann, M.D., Nobin K. 
Bannerji, Rud. Gebhard, S. Ramaswamier, P. Sreenevasa Row, S. 
Subramani Iyer, Naoroji Dorabji Khandalvala, R. Ragoonath Row, 
Gyanendra Nath Chakravartti, M.A., T. Subba Row, H. R. Morgan, M. 
General." (1) 

So far, the document. 

The important fact in this report is that its clearly states the 
obvious reality : those slanders against HPB and the Masters of 
the Wisdom are only "a pretext to injure the cause of Theosophy". 

Also, it is said that the forged letters "appear absurd to those 
who are acquainted with our philosophy & facts". The Committee is 
clearly right. 

What are the motives, then (more than one century later) for John 
Algeo, Daniel Caldwell and a few others to try to adopt those 
slanders as if they had been written by HPB herself? I will leave 
that to the reader. 

The Coulombs at least had the trouble to forge the letters they said 
were written by H.P.B. But Soloviof didn't even present any 
forgeries. He just published the libellous texts that he himself 
had created, mixed up with some sentences from authentic letters, 
but he never showed any "originals". All his work of libels 
followed the same lines established by Emma and Alexis Coulomb. 

The Coulombs did received a bribe for their "pioneer" work. This is 
well-documented. They took at least 150 rupees.(2) Yet it is not 
known whether V. Soloviof worked "on a volunteer basis" for the 
Vatican and other powerful enemies of the movement, or if he 
received a bribe ? and of how much. 

This is the stuff John Algeo and Daniel Caldwell have been making 
propaganda of, in the last few years. 


Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline




NOTES: 

(1) Reproduced from "The Coulomb Case", by Michael 
Gomes, "Theosophical History Occasional Papers", Vol. X, Fullerton, 
California, 2005, 73 pp., see p. XV. 

(2) "The Coulomb Case", by Michael Gomes, "Theosophical History 
Occasional Papers", Vol. X, Fullerton, California, 2005, 73 pp., 
see document at the p. 49, and footnote 78, at p. 29. See also pp. 
15-16. 


oooooooooooooooooooooooooo


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