Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00311)

Sorry folks, my previous post seems to be lacking in formatting so I try
again.

Carlos Aveline and Radha Burnier have been corresponding with respect to
re-opening The Judge Case.  Carlos recently sent me his follow up letter
to Radha's response.  I wanted to make a few comments on the contents of
this exchange.

Carlos started as follows:
<Quote>
Like our previous letters, this is an open text dealing with
public issues.

In April 2006, I wrote you about the importance of Adyar Theosophical
Society re-examining and repairing the injustice done to William Judge
in 1894-95. In May 22nd, you kindly answered:

  "Dear Brother Aveline,
I am in receipt of your letter of 13 April,  and thank you for  the
suggestions made. Being confined to a small area, at least physically,
perhaps you do not realize how much work there is to be done for the
dissemination of Theosophy, and strengthening bonds of brotherhood
everywhere.  I do not see the point of reopening the Judge case and
using one's time and  energy on events long past. Except for a few
people like you, nobody is preoccupied with past affairs, because they
are more
focused with the work to be done now.

With best wishes, yours fraternally, Radha Burnier."
<UnQuote>

Assuming Radha to be a fair individual with no agenda, her response must
be understood in the following manner.  Presumably, Carlos presented an
argument for opening the Judge Case.  Radha responded that she was not
persuaded by the argument and consequently felt that her efforts would
be more wisely placed in other areas of work.  What we do not know is
why Radha felt unmoved by Carlos' arguments.  In addition, I am not
certain as to why Radha felt that she had to personally do anything
other than make an executive decision to allow responsible historians
into the archives.  Those historians who are presumably interested in
the case would be doing all the work.  If Radha chose to, she could
ignore the whole debate and continue focussing "on the work to be done
now."  By denying access, this demonstrates paradoxically, that Radha is
indeed interested in past affairs and is willing to expend time and
resources in fending off responsible historians' free access to the
archives.  It would seem then that the obvious course of action would be
to pin down Radha's objections to the arguments put forward by Carlos,
ask her to do nothing other than make an executive decision to allow
access to the archives, and point out the paradox of refusing to do so.

After discussing the history of the Movement, Carlos brings forward the
following point:

<Quote>
As to the danger in keeping the wrong kind of secrets, please take
into consideration this sentence from  the full text of the 1900 Letter,
which is said to have been sent by one of the Masters to Annie Besant,
but which was kept secret by Adyar as long as Adyar could:

"MISLEADING SECRECY HAS GIVEN THE DEATH BLOW TO NUMEROUS
ORGANIZATIONS."(1)

It is important to consider, here, that such a sentence does not refer
necessarily to the  physical death blow. For a spiritual organization,
moral and ethical death is worse than the physical one.

I am not suggesting  that Adyar is morally dead; yet  I believe that its
vitality – and the vitality of the theosophical movement as a whole
– suffers badly  from various unresolved issues in the past.  The
fact is  that one can only get rid of the past after one learns the
lessons from it. "Liberty from the past" cannot be an escape
from it, nor its denial.
<UnQuote>

The quote from "The Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom" series is
often attributed to a genuine Mahatma Letter.  When this letter is read
as coming from an elemental reflecting back at Besant all her doubts and
concerns from that time, it reads equally fascinating.  Instead of a
warning from the Master we read Besant's concern that her "MISLEADING
SECRECY" is going to destroy the Society.  Besant is telling us that she
has been misleading the Society.

Further, the above concerns about learning the lessons of the past is
considered in my previous post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/34565
This post makes it clear why these injustices of the past have to be
addressed and why they are considered by some as the MOST IMPORTANT
theosophical work of our time.

After further discussing the history of the Movement, Carlos makes the
following observations:

<Quote>
It is amazing how useful History can be.  The more we learn from
the past, the more liberty we have from it.

Due to the importance of the Adyar TS for the movement as a whole, the
effects of its past mistakes have extended their influence over the
ever-changing "present time" of the movement, from the 1890s
through 2006. And this influence may take some more time to find its due
karmic compensation.

At this point, as a student, I must say that I deeply and sincerely
thank you, Ms. Radha,  for something I consider of real importance.

I will always recognize – provided you do not change your position
– the fact that you kept away from the attempt, led by your
vice-president John Algeo, to adopt as part of the theosophical
literature, and in fact as part of H. P. Blavatsky's own writings, a
collection with some of  the  worst
and most  infamous  libels and slanders ever fabricated against H.P.B.

A shameful act indeed, perpetrated by your vice-president.  I wonder how
that could ever happen to  the Adyar T. S.  Whatever the answer, Ms.
Radha,  at least your June 2004 letter about Mr. Algeo's spurious
volume of "HPB Letters" helps clarify the  facts to the many
honest students who are
members of the Adyar TS.

Although it is regrettable that you could not stop Mr. John Algeo, your
2004 letter to me is significant because it shows that he does not have
your "presidential blessings" to slander H.P.B.,  or to unjustly
attack her in the  poorly disguised  way he did.

Circulating old lies and criminal slanders against Helena Petrovna –
and doing this in the name of a "Theosophical" Publishing House 
–  is  certainly a strong sign that History lessons have been
forgotten.
<UnQuote>

I think it is valuable that Carlos brought up this paraphrasing of
Radha's stance with respect to "The Letters".  It will be valuable to
have her confirm this understanding as another reading of her stance
might be that of indifference.  Could it be that she does not endorse
Algeo's editorial stance because she doesn't care?  Perhaps Radha is
more interested in Krishnamurti and his teachings and perceives all this
Blavatsky nonsense as  a distractions from "the work to be done now."

Finally Carlos ends by bringing the focus back to Judge:

<Quote>
The same happens with the ambiguous position of the Adyar TS about
the persecution against William Judge.  Thinking of this,  I wrote to
you and suggested that the Adyar TS could either show proofs of
Judge's guilt or declare him innocent of  "forging  messages
from the Mahatmas".

In the meantime, as no one should be afraid of truth, historians and
researchers could be authorized by you to examine  related documents in
the Adyar Archives.

In taking such important decisions, you might consider that even the
Vatican, under John Paul II, has apologized for its past mistakes made
many centuries ago with regard to the Jewish people, to the American
indigenous peoples,  to individuals considered "heretics", etc. 
I hope Adyar can follow that example sooner than later.
<UnQuote>

Carlos points out the minimum that should be expected from Adyar,
getting out of the way of the historians and challenging Adyar to
surpass this low bar as set by the Catholic Church in recognizing the
wrongs of the past.  I hope the president is not preoccupied by the
important "work to be done now".

Bruce