Theos-Talk Archives (June 2006 Message tt00201)

Carlos:

You seem to be repeating yourself. We have seen these same attacks numerous 
times.

I think you have run up against the American beliefs of a free press, where 
we believe in telling both sides of a story, and assuming that the reader 
has the intelligence to decide the matter for himself. I would guess from 
your messages that you are with the autocrats, who decide what they want the 
people to think, and censor the messages to only let the reader know what 
the Masters want them to know about.

Both John, and Daniel, (And HPB in dealing with Besant), are in the camp of 
the free press.

You will have to accept this mind set, as your attitude doesn't make any 
sense to me, or the standard American mind, and it doesn't seem to me that 
you are convincing Daniel.

You have been flooding this forum with your many postings, and most are just 
repeats of previous posts. Do you feel you have made any headway?

Don't you have anything NEW to harp about.

When electronic Bulletin Boards started in 1983, we had telephone browsers 
to carry our messages, and one feature that most "browsers" (News Readers) 
had was a "TWIT FILTER" that would delete the messages of someone who got 
tiresome, or one that one had an argument with, or whatever.

This browser has a "message" feature where one can create a folder, and have 
all those messages from a specific person transferred to, to read at a later 
date. Yours now will go to a special folder in this browser, and sometime in 
the distant future, when I am bored, and do not have anything else to do, I 
will go and read all your communications, to see if you have developed any 
new thoughts or campaigns. I hope to eventually see some new thought cross 
your mind.

Dennis

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "carlosaveline" <carlosaveline@terra.com.br>
To: "theos-talk" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:15 PM
Subject: Theos-World The 1884 Report



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.