Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01142)

Daniel,

You did not get the idea.  

I would like to have a clear explanation, from you, on why publicizing things you know are false, and which attack the Masters and HPB; and why changing so much of your book in the second edition, without honestly letting the readers know about it.

Would you explain that to us?  

Thanks,  Carlos. 




De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:21:38 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World My Reply to Jake's Posting that Aveline Resurrects

> Mr. Carlos Aveline resurrects a posting
> from Jake from last July. BELOW is what
> I wrote in reply to Jake's posting back
> in July.
> 
> Also since Mr. Aveline himself said that
> "bad" publicity is good publicity, then
> thanks.... I may sell a few more copies
> of my book! :)
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> Jake,
> 
> I see that you have posted comments on my book
> THE ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/34519
> 
> Let me first deal with the title page and "first ed.
> versus reprint" issue.
> 
> You write:
> 
> ==========================================
> In the front of Caldwell's "The
> Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky,"
> "TPH/Quest Edition," 2000 it says on
> the title page: "Originally published
> as 'The Occult World of Madame Blavatsky.'"
> (Impossible Dream Publications, 1991,
> Tucson, and was presumably privately
> published.) This is not true, they are
> different books, "The Esoteric World of
> Mme B." having maybe a third or quarter
> more material than "The Occult World
> of Mme. B."
> =========================================
> 
> And also you write:
> 
> ==========================================
> The title page is not truthful for
> one thing....I (and probably
> many others) didn't buy the second book
> because I saw it referred to as a reprint
> of the same book (not!).
> ....Was the misleading title page for purposes
> of hiding the book from criticism, or just
> "unscholarly" and careless and misleading?
> =========================================
> 
> Yes the title page should have read:
> 
> Second Revised and Enlarged Edition.
> 
> It wasn't the publishers fault so yes
> it was MY oversight...blame me.
> 
> As soon as I received the first printed copies
> of the new edition by FEDEX, I realized the error but
> then it was too late to change it.
> 
> When proofreading the new edition I guess I
> was more concerned with the accuracy of the
> text and the placement of the photos and I
> wish I had caught the oversight because it
> would have alerted people that this edition
> had more material and was in fact a better
> more uptodate version. I might have sold more
> copies! :)
> 
> But it was a mistake ... not some calculated
> ploy "for purposes of hiding the book from criticism."
> That never even crossed my mind!!
> 
> Now to your more serious "charge" (if charge
> it be). You write:
> 
> =================================================
> The second book has
> much new editorical material, new
> antipathetic accounts which reflected
> the authors NEW "scholarly" approach and
> new publisher, TPH at Wheaton. In other
> words, IN ORDER TO BE ACCEPTABLE by academic
> types, YOU HAVE TO HAVE negative biographical
> material as well as positive - even though at
> least some of the negative material is known
> to be untrue. (Otherwise you have the
> accursed "hagiography.") [caps added]
> ==================================================
> 
> And in the same vein you comment:
> 
> ================================================
> The second book is editorially
> changed and MARKS Caldwell's transition
> from UNRESPECTABLE "HPB student" to
> RESPECTABLE "HPB scholar," and thus MONEY
> from a publisher. [caps added.]
> ===============================================
> 
> Jake, here is a good example of a person [ you! :) ]
> reading and INTERJECTING your own "thoughts" and "interpretations"
> into the actual course of events.
> 
> First of all, concerning the "first" edition, under the
> conditions and circumstances under which it was produced
> from manuscript to finished product [I won't go into all of that!!],
> it was my intent during the development of this first edition to
> have more negative accounts. But when I decided to publish the
> first edition myself INSTEAD of having a publisher do it, [there was
> a reason for this decision] I was left with the text typeset as you
> yourself read it. To have expanded it as I wanted, was at the time
> not feasible for time, money and other considerations, so I went
> with the typesetting I had.
> 
> But even in this first edition, you will see the Solovyoff account
> (pp. 192-194) that Carlos Aveline has apparently been so upset about
> and has expended hundreds of words denouncing in the pages of FOHAT,
> AQUARIAN THEOSOPHIST and on Theos-Talk!!!!
> 
> An abbreviated account of Hodgson's assessment of HPB is also in
> that first edition....
> 
> So when TPH Wheaton wanted to publish the book, of course, I wanted
> to expand the text, and add this and that....
> 
> Never once did TPH Wheaton say or suggest or intimate: "Add
> negative accounts to make the book more scholarly!!"
> 
> Never once did that cross my mind!!! that I should make the work
> more scholarly...blah blah blah...
> 
> I am more than willing to stand before the "Masters" for they see
> things as they actually are and let them "judge" what my true
> motives and thinking were! I have many faults (no doubt!) and I
> have alot of work to do on myself but I say "not guilty" to that
> charge.
> 
> I just wanted to make the book "better"....by adding more RARE
> material that I had discovered since the first edition was
> published...material about the Masters, etc. ... and yes I wanted
> to add more "negative" material...
> 
> First of all, a number of readers had written me after reading the
> first edition, wanting to know more about the Hodgson/Coulomb
> charges...What did Coulomb and Hodgson say? also I thought it was
> a good idea to give some details in Coulomb's and Hodgson's own
> words especially about the appearances of the Masters so readers
> could read all that and ALSO read what the other witnesses said
> about how the Masters appeared. Call it COMPARE AND CONTRAST.
> 
> I guess I was foolish enough to believe that readers would actually
> appreciate having access to some of what Coulomb and Hodgson said!
> But I guess I didn't understand the psychology of the "true
> believer"! Who knows!!
> 
> The Coulomb and Hodgson testimony appears downright silly (at least
> to me!) when you compare their explanations with those testimonies
> of the witnesses who were privileged to see the Masters...all of
> that is in my Quest book edition.....Some perceptive readers may
> have picked up on that....So why hide the Coulomb/Hodgson testimony
> from readers????
> 
> And I don't know if I have ever explained this before, but when
> selecting material for both the original edition as well as the
> Quest book edition of my book I purposely selected material for
> inclusion that filled in the gaps in the one sided presentation of
> both the Meade and Johnson books on HPB and the Masters. I can show
> you testimony after testimony that I added for the very reason that
> Meade and Johnson downplayed or simply omitted this relevant
> testimony.
> 
> I'm probably starting to ramble here so make one or two more points
> and I will then sign off.
> 
> Again when you write:
> 
> ===============================================
> The second book is editorially
> changed and MARKS Caldwell's transition
> from UNRESPECTABLE "HPB student" to
> RESPECTABLE "HPB scholar," and thus money
> from a publisher. [caps added.]
> ==============================================
> 
> Jake, if you are suggesting that I added negative accounts, etc. to
> make the work more scholarly or in the hope of selling more copies
> [MONEY] than all I can say is that you are a victim of your
> own "misleading mayavic ideation"! But hey if you want to believe
> it, do so.
> 
> But all of this controversy about my book is probably good and it
> serves as a lesson AT LEAST TO ME...showing me (if no one else) how
> the human mind has a tendency to project its own interpretations on
> to various things, including historical events, etc.
> 
> And then the tendency for us humans to accept the projections as
> reality when in many cases it is simply nothing of the sort.
> 
> Misleading mayavic ideations....
> 
> The lesson here at least for me is to be extremely cautious at
> judging other people, their actions, especially their motives....
> 
> And to refrain as much as possible from such judgments....
> 
> And as far as the issue of including more negative accounts of
> Madame Blavatsky in my book, I am even more convinced that such
> material should be included. People have a right to have access to
> this material. I wanted to read this material as I tried to
> understand Madame Blavatsky in earlier years of my own quest. So why
> should I hide it from readers?
> 
> If readers are somehow confused or thrown off by this material, then
> so be it. Maybe they should simply return to some simple new age
> belief or return to whatever ism or ology they used to believe in.
> 
> Many years ago I left several orthodox faiths for the very reason
> that these isms encourage one not to ask questions, not to look at
> the opposing view, etc. etc.
> 
> And OBTW, if to be a good faithful Theosophist or Blavatskite one
> has to adhere to, for example, the dictums of Carlos Aveline or to
> many of the dictims given in the pages of FOHAT then I for one want
> to run to the nearest exit and leave that kind of "theosophy" far
> behind.
> 
> Written in haste.
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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=1,1164382285.57791.12117.mangoro.hst.terra.com.br,12423,Des15,Des15
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 23/11/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4903
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/


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