Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00069)

Bill,

Thanks. 

You say: 

"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."

Not at all.  

First, I am bringing facts.

Second, the facts I bring help anyone interested to get to their own conclusions. 

Third, it is no question of belief.  It is a question of research. 


Fourth, I would add -- I did not looked for counsel, I wanted to exchange views.  There is a decisive difference there. 

Regards,   Carlos. 


De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:34:17 -0400

Assunto:[Spam] Re: Theos-World HOW I SEE IT

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps one can see what I mean. >
> 
> I understand you, Carlos.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1154486096.431636.12558.baladonia.hst.terra.com.br,10471,20031127114101,20031127114101
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 01/08/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4819
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/


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