Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00064)

INFORMAL CHARGES CAN ONLY BE INFORMALLY  ABANDONED 


Daniel,

All this (see below) is well-known.

The SPR as such, formally never comdemned HPB as a fraud; nor has it made any fraud charges against her;  so both the charges against HPB and their removal were and had to be INFORMAL.

The informal charges and slanders could only be  informally abandoned and withdrawn in 1986.  


Got is now?

Slanderers use to ignore that fact that SPR cease to accuse HPB of fraud. 

It is a non-scholar, funny  trick to say that the charges "were only informally dropped" , forgetting that also the charges were but informal.

Informal, yet effective, both the charges and their withdrawal.  

Except,perhaps,  for the 21st century Soloviof/Coulombs apostles. 


Best regards,   Carlos Cardoso Aveline 



De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:17:47 -0000

Assunto:[Spam] Theos-World Is this True???? SPR "...withdrew its charges against HPB in 1986...."

> "...in the world mental as in the world spiritual each man
> must progress by his own efforts. The writer cannot do the
> reader's thinking for him, nor would the latter be any the
> better off if such vicarious thought were possible..."
> H.P. Blavatsky
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> This morning, Mr. Aveline tells the readers of Theos-Talk:
> 
> "During the 1980s, there was a new and strong evidence that 
> those false 'materials' should be abandoned: it was the 
> self-criticism of the Society for Psychic Research, SPR. 
> The same institution which used those forgeries to
> 'comdemn' Blavatsky as a fraud in 1885 withdrew its 
> charges against HPB in 1986, after experts' examination 
> of the documents showed that the 'process' against
> HPB was biased and fraudulent, while HPB was a victim 
> of persecution."
> 
> I assume Mr. Aveline really believes that what he writes above
> is true, but unfortunately, part of what he writes is not.
> 
> He says that the SPR:
> 
> "...withdrew its charges against HPB in 1986...."
> 
> No, this is simply plain wrong...not true.
> 
> First of all, the SPR has no collective views. Therefore
> the SPR had no "charges" to withdraw in the first place.
> 
> Leslie Price at my request wrote the following which was
> previously posted on this forum:
> 
> "As one who has served twice on the SPR Council, and
> who was involved in the arrangements for the publication
> of Vernon's paper in JSPR April 1986, I can confirm
> that the Society has NO collective view on Theosophical
> phenomena....in publishing Vernon's paper, they did NOT at the
> same time cancel the 1885 report - in the way that
> for example, a scientific publication might withdraw
> a discredited paper on human cloning. ALL the published
> material - including the little known first and provisional
> report of the SPR committee - remains available for study." caps 
> added.
> 
> Mr. Aveline is just playing with words if he still contends that the 
> SPR "withdrew" its charges.
> 
> But let us suppose the SPR had actually done what Mr. Aveline 
> believes.
> 
> What would it really signify?? What would it really mean?
> 
> Well, first of all, it is the Council of the SPR who would have to 
> do this "withdrawing". And the council would have to vote on it.
> 
> Let us suppose there are 20 people on the SPR Council. I have no 
> idea how many are actually on the council!! Let us suppose that the
> vote to withdraw the report was 11 to 9. That is, 11 to withdraw 
> the Hodgson report, 9 against doing so. What would be the 
> significance of this vote?
> 
> If such a vote had actually taken place, and regardless of the 
> voting outcome, I would consider the voting results meaningless. 
> 
> Why? 
> 
> How many of the members on the council would even know enough about 
> the Hodgson/Blavatsky case to be in a position to judge whether the 
> original charges should be withdrawn or not???? etc. etc.
> 
> What if the vote had been 11 for not withdrawing the report? What 
> would Mr. Aveline therefore make of that vote?
> 
> After Vernon Harrison published his article in the SPR publication,
> another member of the SPR Michael Coleman even wrote several letters 
> in the same publication disputing Harrison's findings. Does that 
> mean that the SPR then changed its mind again???
> 
> The conclusions made by Vernon Harrison in his article/report was 
> HIS OWN conclusions and just his own. It could be that if one had 
> polled all the members of the SPR AFTER they had read his report, 
> that most of them would still have considered Hodgson's Report valid 
> or that HPB was still a fraud! Who knows!
> 
> But the SPR as a corporate entity has no opinion one way or the 
> other and Mr. Aveline's statement to the contrary should be viewed 
> as quite misleading. 
> 
> Now personally I came to the conclusion years before Harrison's 
> report was published that Madame Blavatsky was treated unfairly in 
> Hodgson's report and that there were good reasons to discount many 
> if not all of Hodgson's claims. 
> 
> I came to MY OWN conclusions by reading and studying the OBITUARY 
> book plus also reading the Hodgson's report, the Coulomb pamphlet, 
> the Patterson articles, the Gribble report and dozens of other books 
> and pamphlets on the subject plus my own research into the primary 
> sources. 
> 
> I think Harrison's article/book throws a vivid spotlight on many 
> things in the Hodgson report ESPECIALLY ON THE HANDWRITINGS ISSUES 
> SURROUNDING THE MAHATMA LETTERS but it doesn't clear up all the 
> issues since it doesn't deal with all of the Hodgson report. I 
> would even take issue with some of the statements made by Harrison. 
> Nevertheless Harrison's article/book is a valuable contribution to 
> the Hodgson controversy.
> 
> I will bring up some of those "issues" in a future posting. Thanks 
> Carlos for reminding me of this!
> 
> OBTW, I wonder if Mr. Aveline has even read the Hodgson report???
> 
> The Hodgson Report is a valuable historical document containing
> much material which is helpful in trying to understand the 
> history/the controversy at that time. Readers who would like to 
> purchase a copy can buy it at:
> 
> http://ayerpub.com/Product.asp?ProductID=4400000016716
> 
> Daniel
> BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER
> http://blavatskyarchives.com
> http://theosophy.info
> 
> ========================================================
> "...none but the logician, the investigator, the dauntless
> explorer should meddle with books like this. Such delvers
> after truth have the courage of their opinions."
> H.P. Blavatsky
> 
> "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at
> their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and
> hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision."
> H.P. Blavatsky
> 
> "...in the world mental as in the world spiritual each man
> must progress by his own efforts. The writer cannot do the
> reader's thinking for him, nor would the latter be any the
> better off if such vicarious thought were possible..."
> H.P. Blavatsky
> =======================================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


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