Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00688)

Carlos writes:

==========================================================
To Daniel, every section of the theosophical movement is 
to be taken with skepticism, if it should not be laughed at. 
See below.

Daniel takes the Coulombs, or Solovyof, more seriously than he takes
theosophists.

And, of course, he aims at sowing dissent, systematically using 
differences of opinions to discredit the movement as a whole.
==========================================================

I will now make some comments on what Carlos has written above.

I like the way Carlos seems to know what I really believe or think.

Take his first statement:

"To Daniel, every section of the theosophical movement is 
to be taken with skepticism, if it should not be laughed at."

Yes I do believe that any student of Theosophy who knows about the 
many conflicting and contradictory claims and counterclaims in the 
broader Theosophical movement should have a good dose of HEALTHY 
skepticism.  In other words, one should ask relevant questions and 
not naively accept or reject any claim or contention made before one 
makes a thorough inquiry and study.  I also believe in zetetic 
skepticism 

See the following two webpages for brief definitions of
zetetic:

http://www.answers.com/topic/zetetic

http://www.answers.com/topic/marcello-truzzi

See also what I wrote 10 years ago on Theos-Talk:

http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/199612/tt00062.html

But I certainly don't believe (as Carlos apparently wants readers to 
believe) anything like he apparently simply makes up when he writes:

"....if it should not be laughed at...."

Carlos goes on commenting:

"Daniel takes the Coulombs, or Solovyof, more seriously than he takes
theosophists."

This apparently is one more of Carlos' own "misleading mayavic 
ideations."

Certainly not MY opinion.

As I have stated more than once on this forum, I  believe that both 
the Coulombs and Solovyof turned against Madame Blavatsky and lied 
about her.

Let me put it another way:  I believe the vast majority of 
Theosophists whose testimonies were given in my ESOTERIC WORLD OF 
MADAME BLAVATSKY as opposed to the testimony of the Coulombs and 
Hodgson as also given in that same volume.  And this opinion of mine 
was stated at several places in that volume.

And finally Carlos writes:

"And, of course, he [Daniel] aims at sowing dissent, systematically 
using differences of opinions to discredit the movement as a whole."

Although I have serious reservations and doubts about many of the 
claims put forward after Madame Blavatsky's death, I certainly have 
never tried to "discredit the movement as a whole."

I certainly am glad that the Theosophical Movement has survived 
(more or less) over the last 100 years and has been available as an 
alternative to, for example, scientific materialism, orthodox forms 
of Christianity, etc., etc.

But as concerns Carlos' own claim that I am "sowing gossip" 
and/or "sowing dissent", what pray tell is Carlos doing, for example,
when he writes in strongly negative terms about Mr. Leadbeater on 
this forum.  Could it not be said that he ALSO is "sowing gossip" 
and "sowing dissent"?  A number of Leadbeater students certainly 
have expressed that opinion concerning what he has written.

Or in material issued by the editors of Theosophy Magazine, one 
might ask:

Have they ALSO sowed gossip and sowed dissent?

For example, look at the material recommended just today 
by "Compiler".

Take the following articles about G. de Purucker found in the pages 
of THEOSOPHY magazine:

http://tinyurl.com/buj4e

http://tinyurl.com/9vk7b

Or look at the material written by these same editors of Theosophy 
Magazine on Mrs. Tingley:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokes/stokestm7525.htm

http://tinyurl.com/gkl9b

http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokes/stokestm1951.htm

Is it so unreasonable to conclude that these article might also be 
included under what Carlos chooses to call:

Sowing Gossips....Sowing Dissent??????????????

Does Carlos in effect have a DOUBLE STANDARD?

Is he saying it is ok for him as well as the editors of Theosophy 
magazine to make highly critical statements about various 
Theosophical leaders but no one else (including me) can do so???

Is it unreasonable to conclude that the 1951 edition of THE 
THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT still sold by the Theosophy Company, is but an 
ongoing attempt to "sow" gossips...to "sow" dissent?

Some food for thought....

I am under no delusion or illusion that Carlos might have a change 
of  heart and actually try to engage in a cool, calm and thoughtful 
discussion of these issues.

But I write for other interested readers.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc