Theos-Talk Archives (February 2012 Message tt00026)

What does a person's biography have to do with what they are teaching? ÂMommy dearest is quite different when mommy's side is available.

Cass



>________________________________
> From: Govert Schuller <schuller@n1Cr4QYehhc1HccfYLshqP7kqygGc5HQ9GTW5k5xdTtCaKWon9tEh4xTPJn2VFCO7d0VJo1xnPgy_UurLQs.yahoo.invalid>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Monday, 6 February 2012 7:34 AM
>Subject: RE: theos-talk Re: Reply to Govert and questions about Emma Britten and AÃvanhov
> 
>
>Â 
>Thatâs fine with me, as long as you know itâs an opinion. Meanwhile all
>books have factual errors, HPBâs included, so that shouldnât be a criterion
>not to read Meade. 
>
>From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On
>Behalf Of paulobaptista_v
>Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 1:51 PM
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: theos-talk Re: Reply to Govert and questions about Emma Britten and
>AÃvanhov
>
>Dear Govert,
>
>As I said before, I am satisfied with my present opinion about HPB.
>Currently, I am more concerned with grasping theosophical concepts, not so
>much with the evaluation of personalities.
>
>Besides, it is hard to spend money in a book with factual errors. I stumbled
>across the following excerpt just now, while trying to find a bit more about
>Meade's book.
>
>"In all, about nine or ten persons testified to having seen the Mahatmas:
>Annie Besant, Henry Olcott, Damodar Mavalankar, Isabel Cooper-Oakley,
>William Brown, Nadyezhda Fadeyev, S.R. Ramaswamier, Justine Glinka and
>Vsevolod Solovyov. Franz Hartmann said that while he never actually saw
>them, he felt their presence." Marion Meade in her biography Madame
>Blavatsky, The Woman Behind The Myth, 1980, p. 497.
>
>I remember reading this statement by Meade some fifteen years ago and
>exclaiming to myself, "Oh Marion Meade, you haven't done your homework!" Off
>the top of my head, I could count at least twenty-five people who testified
>to having seen the Mahatmas during H.P.B.'s lifetime. And despite Meade's
>statement to the contrary, Hartmann had testified that he had actually seen
>one of the Mahatmas. Apparently Meade had never carefully read two of the
>titles listed in her own bibliography: Geoffrey Barborka's The Mahatmas And
>Their Letters (1973) and Franz Hartmann's Report Of Observations, etc.
>(1884); both titles prove Meade didn't know what she was writing about
>concerning Hartmann."
>
>D. Caldwell
>
>http://www.blavatsky.net/gen/refute/caldwell/johnson2.htm
>
>PB
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>"Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Paulo,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think you might be too negatively influenced by Carrither's rhetoric. He
>> makes good points, but also less good points, and gives the impression
>that
>> the books in question are worthless and that therefore HPB stands
>> vindicated. I do not agree. Meade and Williams also make good points, and
>> lesser points, and are indeed quite straightforward in their disbelief of
>> HPB. Meade does not proceed from an axiomatically held materialist
>position.
>> She acknowledges that there were psychic phenomena connected with HPB but
>> also thinks there was enough trickery by HPB to conclude that she was a
>> fraud. I think every Theosophist should read the Meade book (and then the
>> Carrithers review) to make up their own mind. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
>[mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
>On
>> Behalf Of paulobaptista_v
>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:06 PM
>> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> 
>> Subject: theos-talk Re: Reply to Govert and questions about Emma Britten
>and
>> AÃvanhov
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Govert,
>> 
>> I understand your approach and I would have liked that Meade, Peter
>> Washington and others, who have portrayed a negative image of HPB, had
>done
>> just that, a comparison of the favorable and the unfavorable views, but
>> without preconceptions. I have never read Meade, Williams or Washington's
>> biographies of Blavatsky, but I am familiar with the replies written by
>some
>> theosophists. It still surprises me how difficult it seems to be (even for
>> some who are scholars) to analyze a certain subject without some
>> preconceptions like "Psychic phenomena does not exist so HPB was a fraud"
>or
>> "The existence of Mahatmas with strange powers is something that cannot be
>> real, so they are a product of her imagination". That's not a very
>> scientific approach and even for a journalist those assumptions are
>> incorrect starting points. The number of inaccuracies in the unfavorable
>HPB
>> biographies is very high (dates, places, etcâ) and this only happens
>because
>> some of those authors were not primarily concerned in producing a rigorous
>> work. They prefer to simply give their personal views, based on
>> interpretations (sometimes distorted) of pre-selected events that can
>> suggest that their preconceived ideas are correct.
>> In the links below you can see examples of the kind of mistakes that these
>> authors have in their books:
>> 
>> http://blavatskyfoundation.org/abstractionfromtbf.htm
>> http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/theos/baboon.htm
>> 
>> I am not interested in wasting my time reading books that follow this line
>> of thought, that's why I made that remark about Meade's book.
>> I read some biographic accounts concerning HPB (Cranston, Overton Fuller,
>> Olcott, Cleather, Goodrick-Clarke, Neff, Wachtmeister, Kingsland) and I'm
>> satisfied with my current perspective of who she was. HPB was not perfect
>of
>> course, but people seem to prefer focusing on her faults instead of trying
>> to understand some of her actions and the conditions she had to face to
>> achieve her goal. Most important of all, they forget about the message and
>> teachings that she brought to the world.
>> 
>> I think that a definitive biography has not been made yet, and if someone
>> wants to take that enterprise, of course he/she has to take in account
>those
>> who were against her. All possibilities must be considered, but lies must
>be
>> discarded.
>> 
>> I think that I got no answer to my questions about Emma Britten, so I will
>> try again.
>> Blavatsky and Emma became enemies right after the release of Art Magic?
>When
>> did Emma leave the TS?
>> 
>> I would also like to get some opinions from the members of theos-talk
>> concerning Omraam MikhaÃl AÃvanhov. He is rather popular here in Portugal
>in
>> some circles (for example amongst some of the teachers of Lisbon's biggest
>> astrology school) and it seems that the same happens in France. DonÂt know
>> if the same applies to the English-speaking world. Is he in some way
>> connected to theosophy? His master, Peter Deunov used a lexicon that seems
>> to have something in common with theosophy. Deunov also had some sort of
>> connection with K, after the end of Order of the Star of the East. What is
>> your opinion about AÃvanhov?
>> 
>> PB
>> 
>> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>> "Govert Schuller" <schuller@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Paulo,
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > You bring up a lot of interesting issues. Though I can't deal with them
>> all,
>> > I only like to suggest that two negatives don't make a positive in this
>> > investigation of HPB. The criticisms by HPB apologists of the works by
>HPB
>> > skeptics do not amount automatically to a vindication of HPB. Though
>their
>> > methodologies might be faulty, they still might be right. Besides that,
>> even
>> > Daniel admits that one can learn a lot, though with caution, from the
>HPB
>> > biographies by Meade and Williams. As a Theosophist one might not find
>> them
>> > palatable, they're still important to read, even if only to get familiar
>> > with what's out there fundamentally critiquing HPB.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
>> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
>> On
>> > Behalf Of paulobaptista_v
>> > Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:35 PM
>> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> 
>> > Subject: theos-talk About Emma Britten and the torch-bearer of truth
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Thank you Govert for all you wrote about K. 
>> > 
>> > I do not agree with your perspective on Blavatsky. My ideas about her
>are
>> > closer to Daniel's.
>> > I was appalled to see Marion Meade's biography about Blavatsky mentioned
>> as
>> > a good book, when her statements on this video
>> > 
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vThc0c1WIug
>> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vThc0c1WIug
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vThc0c1WIug
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vThc0c1WIug&feature=related>
>&feature=related>
>> &feature=related>
>> > &feature=related
>> > (check also parts 1, 3 and 4)
>> > 
>> > confirm the warnings made by Carrithers 
>> > http://blavatskyfoundation.org/abstractionfromtbf.htm
>> > 
>> > I see no use in reading a book based on older books that are known to
>> depict
>> > lies. 
>> > 
>> > For me, the most interesting biography about Blavatsky is "Blavatsky and
>> her
>> > teachers", by Jean Overton Fuller. Although not a biography in a strict
>> way,
>> > Daniel's "The Esoteric World of Mme Blavatsky" is also extremely helpful
>> if
>> > you want to know the arguments of those who were for and against the Old
>> > Lady.
>> > 
>> > I donÂt have a good impression about Elizabeth Claire Prophet, although
>I
>> > admit I do not have enough information on her. I know that in
>alpheus.org
>> > there are some articles about Prophet, and I intend to read them. She
>won
>> > the Ig Nobel prize in 2011 for predicting the end of world in the year
>of
>> > 1990 and some of her sons have strongly criticized her. Check what one
>of
>> > them had to say in 2006:
>> > 
>> >
>>
>http://www.blacksunjournal.com/elizabeth-clare-prophet/150_happy-birthday-mo
>> > m_2006.html
>> > 
>> > In a previous post someone mentioned Emma Hardinge Britten. As far as I
>am
>> > aware, Emma Britten was one of the first members of the TS. In 1876 she
>> > published "Art Magic", a book which was recently re-edited by Marc
>> Demarest.
>> > Yesterday I was searching for that passage about the "torch-bearer of
>> truth"
>> > in the Portuguese version of the "Key to Theosophy" and in the previous
>> page
>> > I found strong criticism by Blavatsky about "Art Magic".
>> > 
>> > She wrote: "The cycle of "Adepts," used as sledge-hammers to break the
>> > theosophical heads with, began twelve years ago, with Mrs. Emma Hardinge
>> > Britten's "Louis" of Art Magic and Ghost-Land, and now ends with the
>> "Adept"
>> > and "Author" of The Light of Egypt, a work written by Spiritualists
>> against
>> > Theosophy and its teachings."
>> > 
>> > "The spiritualistic author of Art Magic, etc., may or may not have been
>> > acquainted with such an Adept [Louis, who according to Emma Britten,
>gave
>> > much of the information contained in the book]â and saying this, I say
>far
>> > less than what that lady has said and written about us and Theosophy for
>> the
>> > last several years â that is her own business."
>> > 
>> > Blavatsky and Emma became enemies right after the release of Art Magic?
>> When
>> > did Emma leave the TS? 
>> > 
>> > About the 20th century "torch bearer of truth", I found these two
>articles
>> > written by Carrithers:
>> > 
>> > http://blavatskyfoundation.org/torch.pdf
>> > 
>> > http://blavatskyfoundation.org/hasdamodarreturned.pdf
>> > 
>> > and also this one published in the Winter of 2008 in Fohat
>> > 
>> > http://www.theosophyonline.com/ler.php?id=298
>> > 
>> > which are of some interest, concerning this subject.
>> > 
>> > When we look to the last quarter of the 20th century we see a
>> popularization
>> > of the concepts of karma and reincarnation, mainly through the hands of
>> men
>> > of science. We have Raymond Moody Jr's "Life after Life" released in
>1975
>> > about NDEs. In 1977, the first academic article by prof. Ian Stevenson
>> about
>> > reincarnation was accepted by a medical journal (his work gave strong
>> > support to the advocates of reincarnation). We could even add Brian
>Weiss'
>> > books about past lives, the first being published in 1988. Buddhist
>> > teachings spread widely in the West during the 1975-2000 period.
>> > 
>> > In astrology, we had the resurge of ancient techniques, with the
>> translation
>> > of valuable old books by astrologers like Robert Hand, Robert Zoller and
>> > Robert Schmidt, all of them with an extensive knowledge of Greek or/and
>> > Latin. This had a tremendous impact in the Art.
>> > 
>> > It is quite clear for me that the common man of our Western societies
>has
>> > heard a lot about karma and reincarnation in the last 35 years. Movies
>> (and
>> > even soap operas) used them as plot devices. Despite of all that
>happened
>> in
>> > the 60's I guess that those concepts were not that popular in 1975 as
>they
>> > are now.
>> > There was not an intervention of a "torch- bearer of truth", nor did the
>> TS
>> > had an important role in the 1975-2000 period. Taking HPB words
>literally,
>> > we can hypothesize that the course of events led to a change of
>strategy,
>> > and the option was to popularize two core concepts, benefiting from the
>> > visibility and credibility that men of science have. Of course we could
>> > discuss some of their methods, especially in the case of Brian Weiss. 
>> > 
>> > I am sure that all that happened in the TS after Blavatsky's death
>surely
>> > impeded the TS of being the body that could continue the work of its
>> > Founders. I certainly agree with Carrithers and Redfern on this.
>> > 
>> > Blavatsky's words were:
>> > "Towards the close of each century you will invariably find that an
>> > outpouring or upheaval of spirituality â or call it mysticism if you
>> prefer
>> > â has taken place. "
>> > 
>> > And the question that has to be asked is if this happened in the last
>> > quarter of the 20th century or not. In my opinion, yes, it has.
>> > 
>> > PB
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > No virus found in this message.
>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> > Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4757 - Release Date:
>01/21/12
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4781 - Release Date: 02/02/12
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4790 - Release Date: 02/05/12
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 
>
>

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