Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00066)

<Bill,

OK. Thanks.

Yet -- what makes you think I ever "equated the Movement with the 
perennial wisdom itself?" >

In my recent exchange with Bruce, I have explained my thinking on this 
idea that some people do more than "equate,"  but actually promote the 
Movement above and beyond theosophy itself.  If after reading that 
discussion through, you still need further explanation I will try 
again.  For now I will say that until you stop classifying people based 
on whether or not they "believe" in HPB, you will be transmitting your 
general preference for defending the Movement over a desire to promote 
theosophical awareness.

<Explain that. The difference between the Movement and the Teaching is 
obviously great enough, and the perennial wisdom is quite a different 
matter!
Even the Teaching is very much limited if compared to the Wisdom 
Eternal, just as the Movement is and must be very much limited if 
compared to the Teaching.

(As to the Teaching, it naturally dates back to Ancient India, Greece, 
Egypt, etc., and itself goes beyond words, being transmitted also by 
Example and Silence.)

You say: "Still, so long as you remain clear that it is the Movement 
that you are protecting..

."

That needs qualification. I put FACTS above the "movement". I will give 
you an illustration of that, Bill.

When I first read Letter Seven and other idiocies in Algeo's volume, in 
the first semester of 2004, I painfully doubted HPB. At first, I just 
could not think USA TPH could publish a fake and slanderous action.

Then I stopped to think, went through the "sources" of that fake text, 
saw it came from Soloviof, understood it all, and called from my rural 
home and library in Brasilia to a friend, a long standing editor in the 
English language (not a ULT member):

-- "Tell me, am I dreaming, or Soloviof cannot be taken as a source of 
any historical information on HPB? Take a look at Sylvia Cranston! What 
happened to Algeo and the TPH?"

And the person said:

-- "You are right. Soloviof can be no source".

Then I stopped doubting HPB. And still I checked that with Algeo 
himself, with Radha Burnier, Dara Eklund, Joy Mills and many others, 
before getting tougher.

So, I clearly put TRUTH and FACTS well above any current opinion of mine. >


Carlos, as best I can tell from this story, you had painful doubts about 
HPB because of something you read.   Then you stopped to think, went to 
the available sources, and sought the counsel of someone whom you 
trusted.  Having examined it for yourself, you stopped doubting HPB.  
You are probably stronger for the experience, and yet, you seek to 
prevent others from having the same chance to grow stronger in their 
beliefs about HPB.  I cannot explain it any simpler language, Carlos.   
As for me, I have directly experienced  theosophy and know certain 
things about myself that are beyond the realm of doubt.  If conclusive 
proof should be brought forward tomorrow that HPB  was a liar and a 
cheat I will not be dismayed, nor will I doubt my direct theosophical 
experiences.


<It is because of this characteristics of mine that, having once 
believed that CWL was a true disciple, I accepted the truth about his 
Pseudo-Theosophy and moved on.

It is because of this characteristics of mine that, having once believed 
that J. Krishnamurti was an Initiate and a Brahmacharya (!) , I accepted 
the facts of his great human limitations as confessed by Radha Burnier 
and other close students and friends of his, and moved on. (Ms. Radha 
honestly admitted his limitations and personal emotional complications 
in a face to face talk with me in 22 August 1995, during a Theosophical 
retreat in Brazil. )

What about H. P. Blavatsky?

Easy. You see, Bill -- Daniel Caldwell doesn't even have the courage to 
say that he believes in the Coulombs, or in Soloviof; and John Algeo 
follows the very same track. Algeo recently wrote in "The Theosophist" 
-- "those letters may well be fake..." >


Carlos, I don't have time right now to research your abbreviated quote 
here, but I sense that Algeo offered a more substantial idea than just 
those few words.  I am getting ready to leave for vacation, but when I 
return I will try to bring more of what Algeo has said here for 
interested readers.

<"What a nerve!" I would say. They publicize what they know to be but 
slanders. >

I don't believe that you can be so sure of what anyone else "knows", nor 
can you guess with any degree of accuracy as to their motives.  You tend 
to attribute ill will and bad motives to them, but could that just be a 
reflection of your own "characteristics" as you have believed first one 
thing and then left it behind for another?


Further, I think we have a difference of opinion about what it means to 
publish vs. publicize.  To my way of thinking, Algeo published some 
letters which evidently might cause some people with certain 
"characteristics" to doubt HPB.   I think that the people who published 
the book are free to include or exclude whatever letters they deem 
appropriate for their purposes. I may not agree with their choices, but 
I defend their right  to make those choices.  I would say the same thing 
about a book you published.  Now this published book will eventually be 
responded to in like kind by another published book that excluded some 
letters, either with or without explanation.  It happens all the time 
that publishers and editors and authors disagree and respond in kind.  
This gives readers more choices and different points of view and that is 
generally a good thing.  As to the authenticity of any particular letter 
let me ask you Carlos, if the devil published a book on heaven, wouldn't 
you want to read it?  Certainly I would.   Now this brings me to the 
word "publicize."  I believe that you are doing far more to publicize 
these letters than Algeo and Caldwell combined.  Everyday, you are here 
on theos-talk publicizing these letters.  I ask you to search the 
archives for the time between the book's publication of these letters 
and your appearance here.  How many posts can you find here publicizing 
this publication?  Only a few.  A couple of them  are mine as I 
questioned Daniel on the rationale for including these letters.  Not 
much publicizing at all during that time frame.  But count again in the 
time since your arrival.  Too many to count.  You are the chief 
publicizer of these letters on theos-talk.  I have know Daniel for 10 
years here at theos-talk.  You will not get him to unpublish the letters 
no matter how much you publicize them.


<I hope that clarifies.

To me, Truth and Facts are above the Movement, and above my vision of 
it; but slanders, lies and falsehoods are not "scientific", and 
therefore it is not my duty to accept them. >

But is it your duty to not accept or reject them on behalf of anyone else?


<If one reads the above lines in an impersonal and non-reactive mood, 
perhaps one can see what I mean. >

I understand you, Carlos.

<I am a seeker. That which I want to learn yet -- is far more important 
than that which I think I may have learned already; but conscious 
falsehoods, well, they are quite a different stuff. >

Yes they are, but unconscious falsehoods are an even more different 
stuff than that.


peace,

bill

Regards, Carlos.