Theos-Talk Archives (January 2007 Message tt00227)

Friends,

Some time ago, I had thie dialogue with Mr. Caldwell t Theos-talk. 

Carlos. 

oooooooooooooooo

Daniel,

You should open a drugstore and sell both authentic and false medicines,
so that people can judge by themselves which ones are fake, which ones are authentic. 

The DEA will understand you. 


Think about that. Discuss it with your friend "David Green". 

(Likewise, Theosophy is meant to heal one's soul, and it must be preserved, as much as possible, from shameful falsehoods no one has had the courage to defend as true facts so far, not even you.) 

Regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline 


De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:05:18 -0000

Assunto:[Spam] Theos-World Let us suppose the SPR actually withdrew its charges about HPB...so what??

> Let us suppose the SPR actually withdrew its charges about HPB.
> 
> What would it really signify?? What would it really mean?
> 
> Well, first of all, it is the Council of the SPR who would have to
> do this "withdrawing". And the council would have to vote on it.
> 
> Let us suppose there are 20 people on the SPR Council. 
> 
> Let us also suppose that the vote to withdraw the report was 11 to 
> 9. That is, 11 to withdraw the Hodgson report, 9 against doing so. 
> What would be the significance of this vote?
> 
> If such a vote had actually taken place, and REGARDLESS of the
> voting outcome, I would consider the voting results MEANINGLESS.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Think about it...people.
> 
> How many of the members on the council would even KNOW ENOUGH about
> the Hodgson/Blavatsky case to be IN A GOOD POSITION to judge whether 
> the original charges should be withdrawn or not???? 
> 
> I'm sorry but reading Harrison's article in the SPR Journal does not 
> qualify one to be IN A GOOD POSITION....
> 
> I can tell you one thing.....I am not going to base my view about 
> Madame Blavatsky and the validity of her paranormal powers, etc. on 
> a vote of people who "as a group" may know less about her and the 
> original controversy than your typical Theosophist!
> 
> What if the vote had been 11 for not withdrawing the report? What
> could one therefore make of that vote?
> 
> My advice to interested readers:
> 
> If you are at all interested in determining the validity or
> not of the Hodgson Report, read and study it FOR YOURSELF
> and also read and compare it with the various critiques by
> Harrison, Carrithers, Vania, Hastings, Besant, Kingsland, etc. and
> well as some of the material written by defenders of the Hodgson 
> Report.
> 
> Of course the EASIER WAY [the lazy man approach??] is to let some
> one else do your homework and thinking for you and just accept that 
> the SPR [whether formally or informally] withdrew the Hodgson Report 
> and its charges against HPB, THEREFORE we can conclude that there is 
> no substance to the charges, etc. etc.
> 
> Is this like the priest that tells the congregation: "Don't read
> the Bible for yourself, I'm here to tell you what it really means"?
> 
> Now personally I came to the conclusion years before Harrison's
> report was published that Madame Blavatsky was treated unfairly in
> Hodgson's report and that there were good reasons to discount many
> if not all of Hodgson's claims.
> 
> I came to MY OWN conclusions NOT by believing the SPR supported the 
> charges or withdrew the charges BUT by reading AND studying the 
> OBITUARY book plus also reading the Hodgson's report, the Coulomb 
> pamphlet, the Patterson articles, the Gribble report and dozens of 
> other books and pamphlets on the subject plus my own research into 
> the primary sources.
> 
> Now maybe I am wrong in my own conclusions but at least they are my 
> own conclusions and not the conclusion made as a result of some SPR 
> council vote!!!
> 
> So Carlos Aveline and others of similar thinking, go ahead and 
> succumb to "organizational" authority, in this case, the 
> SUPPOSED "informal" withdrawing of the report by the SPR...
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> 
>


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