Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01106)

Friends,


I can see G.Tillett's point, below, and I partially agree with it. 

The main issue, though, is about dozens of letters which have the following  characteristics: 

* their originals never appeared; 

* in them, HPB is made to call herself a prostitute (or suggest that);  she is made to confess she worked for the devil,  and so on; 

* the only source of these letters are well-known public enemies of the theosophical movement, in some cases working for a bribe; 

* these letters are probably the result of  fake interpolations within authentic originals, which were  later destroyed. 

Such letters obviously demand a completely different editorial treatment than the one given to authentic letters. 

Yet  Caldwell and his companion Algeo are publishing this kind of stuff with scarce or no identification, presenting them as genuine for the average, lay reader.  

In Soloviof's book, he hints or makes HPB suggest that as she getting old, she could not earn  money any longer as a whore, then she found the TS. 

So funny!  

I have to laugh at that;  but still, this is Jesuitism, slander pervert thinking.

(  I will not mention the personal mothers of those editors today, but I will say that HPB is in a way the mother of the theosophical movement, and she deserves respect, as facts and truth do deserve respect.  )

The examples of absence of Ethics in TPH/USA are numerous, though.  

Tillett has shown various examples of that in the very edition of the "Letters of HPB, Fake and True".  


Best regards,   Carlos. 




De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Thu, 23 Nov 2006 06:33:36 +1100 (EST)

Assunto:Theos-World Fake HPB letters



> I do not support the publication of ?fake? letters of HPB (or anyone
> else). However, a distinction must be made between ?fake? and
> ?questionable? or ?controversial?. ?Fake? presupposes incontrovertible
> evidence of fraud: for example, if I produce a letter allegedly written by
> HPB in Sydney in 1890 it would clearly be a ?fake?. The problem with
> eliminating or not including letters in the ?questionable? or
> ?controversial? categories is that of criteria. Are they to be eliminated
> on the basis of provenance (?X was a crook therefore any letters he
> produced must be fakes?) or content (?HPB wouldn?t have written these
> words?)? Both are methodologically unsatisfactory. Liars, thieves and
> forgers sometime provide genuine material. Letter writers sometimes write
> things that are atypical or contrary to their usual style or beliefs.
> Therefore, I would argue that ?controversial? letters should be included,
> but be identified as such and the reasons for the controversy outlined. I
> note that lots of clearly genuine letters from Leadbeater were made
> accessible by his most savage critics; the letters were not ?fakes?
> because they were made accessible in an attempt to damage Leadbeater?s
> reputation or by his self-declared enemies. The famous (or infamous)
> ?cipher letter?, with its strange sexual message to one of his male boy
> pupils, is an excellent example. Leadbeater?s supporters (including
> Besant) claimed it must be ?fake? because of its provenance (?His enemies
> produced it?) and its content (?He would never have written such a
> letter?). He never denied the genuineness of the letter (and,
> interestingly, the cipher used is also used in one of his ?ghost stories?,
> not written or published until more than five years after the ?cipher
> letter?).
> 
> Dr Gregory Tillett


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