Theos-Talk Archives (January 2007 Message tt00103)

The statement has been made:

===========================================================
No one, not even D. Caldwell or J. Algeo, has had the nerve to say
that those "obviously spurious letters" (Radha's words about them) are
legitimate.

Historians and Scholars have no business in publicizing well-known
lies. Only this kind of people.
==========================================================

Concerning those "obviously spurious letters", why is it that
Boris de Zirkoff, Michael Gomes and Sylvia Cranston (three well known 
writers and authorities on HPB) have all used some of these "obviously 
spurious letters" in their various books and publications.

These three persons have quoted from some of these letters using such 
phrases as: H.P.B. wrote to A.N. Aksakoff.  

In other words, these three writers have been presenting 
these "obviously spurious letters" as legitimate HPB.  Readers of their 
books would think, "Oh, the book THE MODERN PRIESTESS OF ISIS must 
contain HPB letters.  Maybe I should read the book...."  etc. etc. 

If it is true that "Historians and Scholars have no business in 
publicizing well-known lies," then what were Boris de Zirkoff, Sylvia 
Cranston and Michael Gomes doing when they used these letters as 
legitimate HPB material/letters in their books????

It would appear that the letters were not so OBVIOUSLY spurious to 
these three persons.

And let us not forget that the scholar and historian the late John 
Cooper had already included in both his published dissertation which 
can be obtained from the University of Sydney and in his TPH Wheaton 
manuscript of Vol. I of HPB's letters ALL of these "obviously spurious 
letters".....

In my next posting on this subject, I will give a few more specifics 
concerning the examples given in my posting at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/39259

[cue card:  distract, distract, distract, distract....]

Daniel
http://hpb.cc