Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00458)

Brigitte, you wrote in part to "redrosarian":

". . . why not discuss the issues, instead of ad hoc condemnations 
or/and attacks ?"

Brigitte, I hope others will take your advice and I ALSO hope that 
you will take your own advice.

I also urge you to stop indulging in ad hominem arguments/attacks 
which divert attention from the specific historical issues being 
discussed.

For example, in one of your recent postings you wrote:

". . . as far as I know Agehananda Bharati is a Buddhist scholar who 
is in a position to know what Buddhism and Tibet is. Walter A. 
Carrithers is a Theosophical appologetic who is not in a position to 
know what Buddhism or 'letters from Tibet' would be like. Yes I know 
you and Carrithers would nevertheless no matter what not want to 
agree with Bharati."

Brigitte, can you say in all honesty that this is not an ad hominem 
argument?

What does the fact of Bharati being a "Buddhist scholar" and Walter 
Carrithers being a "Theosophical appologetic" have to do with 
deciding whether some of Bharati's statements about Blavatsky are 
accurate and true or inaccurate and false? 

Are you trying to tell your readers on this forum that because Walter 
Carrithers is a "Theosophical appologetic" THEREFORE nothing he 
writes about is true or that nothing he says about Bharati's 
statements can be true?

Getting down to specifics:

Bharati wrote:

"One of the most annoying features in the 'M Letters' (M for Master) 
is her [Blavatsky's] use of semi-fictitious names, like 'H Master K' 
(Koot Humi)."

Carrithers pointed out:

". . . in the Mahatma Letters . . . what we do not find anywhere 
is . . . the 'use' of the 'semifictitious' name 'H Master K'" .

Now, Brigitte, who is right here: the Buddhist scholar or the 
"Theosophical appologetic? 

Who really cares, Brigitte, that Bharati and Carrithers wrote these 
statements? Take their names off the statements and judge the 
statements by the evidence and facts.

The claim is made that in the "M Letters" one will find the phrase "H 
Master K". Notice the quotations marks used. But where in the "M 
Letters" will you find this exact phrase?

Another example:

Bharati wrote:

"There is, of course, no such name [Koot Humi] in an Indian language 
or in Tibetan. But in the Upanisads, there is a minor rishi 
mentioned, by the obviously non-Indo-European name Kuthumi. Just 
where she [Blavatsky]picked it up I don't know, but I suspect she 
might have seen R. E. Hume's Twelve Principal Unpanisads, which was 
first published by Oxford University Press in the late 80's of the 
19th century."

Carrithers commented:

"He [Bharati] obviously does not know . . . when the main body of 
published Mahatma Letters were received. . . . he [Bharati] is 
oblivious to the fact that H.P.B. could not have 'picked' from a 
book 'first published ... in the late 80's of the 19th century' a 
name for signature to a series of letters begun in 1880."

Now, Brigitte, who is right here: the Buddhist scholar or the 
"Theosophical appologetic? 

Who really cares, Brigitte, that Bharati and Carrithers wrote these 
statements? Take their names off the statements and judge the 
statements by the evidence and facts.

Another comparison:

Bharati wrote:

"The well-meaning American Colonel Olcott and the Russian-born Mme. 
Blavatsky, founders of the Theosophical Society, did indeed undergo 
that ceremony of initiation in that shrine in Sri Lanka. . . . 
Leadbetter and other founding members [of the T.S.]formed the 
incipient caucus of the Society which still survives. . . ." 

Carrithers commented:

"All of this is on par with Bharati's attempt . . . to make C. W. 
Leadbeater one of the 'founding members' of H.P.B.'s Theosophical 
Society! He obviously does not know even . . . when the Society was 
founded. . . ."

The Society was founded in 1875 in New York City and Leadbeater did 
not join the Society until 1883 in London. 

I could go down the list for you Brigitte but I think you get my 
point.

I have my own list of mistakes, inaccuracies and silly statements in 
Bharati's article.

Here's one of many from Bharati's pen:

""I am just not sure whether Mme. Blavatsky read the serious Hindu 
and Buddhist literature in translation and commentary available in 
her days. . . ."

Why isn't Bharati sure? Did Bharati ever actually read HPB's SECRET 
DOCTRINE? "I am just not sure..."! :) All that he would actually 
need to do is causally page through the SD and he would find HPB 
QUOTING and CITING from the "serious Hindu and Buddhist literature in 
translation and commentary available in her days. . . ." 

To quote from these translations means Blavatsky also read them, 
right? :)

I could cite more and more but will stop here. I assume you get my 
points.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc



Brigitte M. wrote:

> MNS, I do not consider "one side only", I try to study a large 
> variety of sides. 
> 
> But so what is then your own take on the historical aspects at 
hand ?
> 
> How many months back have you read the mails on this list ? 
> 
> Why don't you (and I would wish for many others on this list) do 
much 
> better then me, where is your own research "without reffering to 
any 
> research of others" ? 
> 
> First of all Daniel Caldwell is the one that chalenged me to bring 
> research material from also other scolars that would show there is 
> alternative research being done. 
> 
> Second if I would only give my own opinions and research Daniel and 
> you would say Brigitte is just making this up.
> 
> Also people don't seem to realise on this list that a tremendous 
> amount of time is spent on this list on fighting (already long 
> before I ever joined this list), why engage in so much fighting but 
> not offer any valid counter arguments or better information that 
you 
> bring?
> 
> Certainly you should also have noticed that I only act in self 
> defence if there is an attack to begin with. Why I should let 
> myself been beaten up verbally as now you subtle, are 
> trying to do.
> 
> Although as I repeat , why not discuss the issues, instead of ad 
hoc 
> condemnations or/and attacks ?
> 
> I don't like to engage in fighting that is not what I am on this 
list 
> for.
> 
> I hand type everything (the often long mails with material ) I 
> bring, wich takes considerable time, and am also engaged with many 
> other activitys. 
> 
> Why dont you and others who engage in these under (and above) the 
> belt attacks, also ad something of value to this list, something of 
> interest hopefully then much better then my mails, and thereby let 
> each ad their own without the only thing you do is engage in 
> attacking the people on the list that you don't like. 
> 
> I try to the best of my ability bring interresting information, I 
> haven't seen you bring any.
> 
> Where are your articles on Theosophy, or your web site, share 
your 
> information, where is it ?
> 
> Or any of the article contents on my web page you can prove is 
wrong, 
> in error, you know more about, know better, let it be known. And 
> this is an invitation to all of the list members:
> 
> http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a7502210/index.html 
> Brigitte