Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00188)

Robert/Carlos,

An abridged version of 'The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky' is 
online. Chapter 14 contains the paragraph - 

"The Coulomb attack, as was later evident, had no solid foundation 
whatsoever. It was based on forged and partially forged letters, 
purporting to have been written by H. P. Blavatsky, with instructions 
to arrange fraudulent psychic phenomena of various kinds. A Christian 
missionary magazine in Madras published the most incriminating 
portions of these letters."

You can read it at 
http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/books/esotericworld/chapter14/in
dex.html . So Daniel does make a judgment about the Coulombs and 
clearly indicates that their letters were fabrications. I did not 
find a similar statement about Solovyov or Richard Hodgson (but I 
could not find Solovyov's false testimony in the online version 
either).

Personally, I would have liked him to say clearly right next to the 
texts he has compiled, whether he thought they were lies or not. At 
least in the case of the Coulombs he has done that. Perhaps he learnt 
his craft as a historian from American journalists who parrot the 
lies of the Bush administration without evaluating them for the 
reader (they are of course afraid for their jobs). However, I don't 
think Daniel's intent was to malign or libel HPB himself.

Regards,

Dave
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Bruce MacDonald" 
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> >Message: 23          Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:01:21 EST
> >   From: leonmaurer@...
> >Subject: Re: TPH & Recent Libels Against HPB
> >
> >Theosophists and others,
> >
> >The following letter has one basic failure of understanding that 
belies 
> >every statement it makes or conclusion it implies.   And that 
understanding 
> >is that; A true "Historian" can only report *everything* that is 
pertinent 
> >to the *truth* of *exactly* what happened, including what anyone 
said or 
> >wrote, at any particular time in history -- without making any 
personal 
> >judgments or opinions about any of it.
> 
> It seems to me that this is exactly what Daniel refuses to do, make 
a 
> personal judgment.  If he believes the Coulombs and Solovyoffs of 
this 
> world, he should have the courage to say so and argue why they 
should be 
> taken seriously.  If he believes, as others have argued, that much 
of what 
> they say is fabricated (hence lies), he should have the courage to 
come out 
> strong in support of HPB.  What Daniel does instead (intentionally 
or not) 
> is insidious.  He repeats the lies without any argument at all (he 
simply 
> states that some of the points of view are from enemies, as if 
enemies and 
> liars are the same thing).  Some would argue that this lack of 
taking a 
> stance is cowardice at best, and diabolical at its worst.
> 
> >
> >This is something that the author has to Learn -- so that he can 
understand 
> >why his own personal opinions, implied, insinuated or otherwise, 
have no 
> >validity whatsoever, and are nothing more than unfounded gossip 
when they
> >pertain to the motives or actions of anyone else.
> 
> These are not opinions, Carlos is arguing that there is a 
difference between 
> liars and enemies and liars do not deserve the same treatment as 
enemies.  
> Enemies are to be respected because they believe they are dealing 
with the 
> truth.  Liars know they are not.  When looking at a body of 
evidence 
> presented by one party (for instance the Coulombs), when some of 
that 
> evidence is shown to be fabricated, then it shows that that party 
has 
> deliberately misled (like the Coulombs), and nothing they say can 
be 
> trusted.  If you as a historian want to repeat some aspect of these 
proven 
> liars testimony, then the onus of proof is on you.  Prove that this 
aspect 
> of their testimony is valid, otherwise your behavior is immoral as 
it does 
> nothing but sully the reputation of an innocent person by 
repitition of 
> garbage.
> >
> >His taking on the role of prosecutor, judge and jury is far more 
insidious 
> >and untheosophical than the purported actions of someone he 
repeatedly 
> >implies, besides remaining silent in the face of such unproved 
accusations 
> >(as HPB did with her attackers) has committed some kind of fraud 
by 
> >reporting the truth of what happened to HPB, and publishing all 
the so 
> >called evidential comments and writings of those that attacked as 
well as 
> >defended her -- without his own personal comment or opinions... 
And letting 
> >the readers judge for themselves what is true or false, and who is 
right or 
> >wrong, innocent or guilty.
> 
> Deal with the argument, Leon.  The arguments of enemies are to be 
treated 
> with respect, the words of liars need not be accorded any respect.  
If you 
> believe the Coulombs, etc. to be other than liars, argue for them.  
To 
> attack Carlos for trying to stand up for someone he has a great 
deal of 
> respect for is ludicrous.  Once people are shown to be liars, their 
words 
> are "evidence" only in proceedings against them (libel, contempt of 
court, 
> etc.).
> >
> >As further advice to students of theosophy, the judgment of HPB's 
teachings 
> >are dependent only on the teachings themselves, and not on her 
personal 
> >life or actions, regardless of whether one approves of them or not.
> 
> Certainly the above is true, but this does not make it open season 
on her 
> reputation.  When is it permissable to start sullying your name?  
Now?  One 
> minute after your death? A year?  Hopefully as theosophists we will 
all 
> stand by you even after your death and not let lies diminish your 
memory in 
> the eyes of the world.
> >
> >Henceforth, I intend to trash such personalized, propaganda-like 
letters 
> >before wasting my time reading them.   What anyone else does about 
them, is 
> >strictly their own business.
> 
> Your prerogative,
> 
> Bruce
> >
> >LHM
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 3/4/06 11:08:53 AM, carlosaveline@... writes:
> >
> >
> >Dear Friends,
> >
> >
> >In the year 2000, the Theosophical Publishing House/Quest Books 
published
> >the unfortunate volume "The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky", 
by Daniel
> >Caldwell.
> >
> >This 451 pp. book is a collection of testimonies, false and true,  
about 
> >the
> >life of  H. P. Blavatsky.  With this book, Daniel Caldwell 
inaugurated a 
> >new
> >   "editorial policy" adopted by the Adyar Theosophical Society 
in  America 
> >,
> >which consists of publishing lies and libels invented by the old 
enemies of
> >H. P. Blavatsky  and of the theosophical movement as if they were 
authentic
> >documents.
> >
> >The new editorial "policy" also includes publishing these false 
accusations
> >scattered amidst authentic documents, which makes it harder  for 
the
> >unexperienced student to identify the falsehoods whose effect -  if
> >unresisted -  would be killing HPB´s memory and destroying its 
spiritual
> >vibration at the moral, ethical and occult levels, which are 
inevitably
> >interconnected.
> >
> >Thus HPB´s image could be apparently put at the same level as some 
other
> >"theosophical" leaders, perhaps. In the disgusting volume "The 
Esoteric
> >World of Madame Blavatsky"  - while believing  the editor has 
selected
> >truthful documents -  the reader will bump into many of the lies 
written
> >against HPB. There he will see two texts by  Emma Coulomb (pp. 35-
36 and 
> >pp.
> >210-215) with no word from the "editor" Daniel Cadlwell admitting 
he is
> >publishing documents which have no trace of truth in them 
whatsoever.
> >
> >Caldwell´s book also contains two texts by Mr. Solovyov with 
attacks 
> >against
> >HPB; one false testimony by Mr. Richard Hodgson, several false 
accusations
> >against HPB made by Moncure D. Conway and many other unjust 
attacks aimed 
> >at
> >her who is not here to defend herself.  The disgusting material 
includes
> >utter disrespect for two Sacred Teachers and Their names, in one 
of the
> >libels signed by Emma Coulomb.
> >
> >Its  reproduction by  a Publishing House which calls 
itself "Theosophical"
> >is something which surpasses and goes relatively far beyond the 
limits of
> >absurdity. HPB wrote long enough in The Key to Theosophy   about 
the abuse
> >of sacred names, even when the cause of such a desecration is not a
> >collection of deliberate lies against the theosophical philosophy.
> >
> >
> >As to this kind of action, there are two levels of karma: the 
karma of
> >actively publishing lies against the Masters and HPB, and the 
karma of
> >anyone who knows about this and does nothing.  This will not be 
the  karma
> >of earnest students. In the Preliminary Memorandum of the Esoteric 
Section
> >of  Theosophical Society, issued in 1888, Mrs. Blavatsky made an 
inspiring
> >quotation from the Book of Discipline in the schools of Dzyan and 
from a
> >letter  of a Master: "He who wipeth not away the filth with which 
the
> >parent´s body have been defiled by an enemy, neither loves the 
parent nor
> >honours himself. He who defendeth not  the persecuted and the 
helpless 
> >(...)
> >has been born too soon in human shape."   I can only humbly aggree 
with
> >these wise words.
> >
> >It is true that the editor of "The Esoteric World of Madame 
Blavatsky" 
> >wrote at the preface of the book:
> >
> >"These reminiscenses by her relatives, acquaintances,  friends,  
> >co-workers,
> >and enemies  give a vivid portrayal of Madame Blavatsky´s 
personality and
> >allow the reader to enter into the historical milieu of her time."
> >
> >But he forgot the profound difference between an enemy and a liar.
> >
> >An enemy, says the dictionary, is an adversary or an opponent - 
often an
> >honest person.  A liar is a person who tells lies - or who 
knowingly helps
> >propagating them. Enemies may say unpleasant truths and we should 
be able 
> >to
> >learn from them. The problem is not with enemies, then, but with 
false
> >testimonies. The editor of  "The Esoteric World of Madame 
Blavatsky" 
> >wrongly called "reminiscenses" the old, well-known falsehoods and 
proved
> >lies.  He and TPH-Wheaton considered them  beautiful enough to go 
to the
> >public.
> >
> >O o o O o o O o o O
> >
> >Best regards,  Carlos.
> >
> >
> >O o o O o o O o o O
> >
> >
> >NOTE:
> >
> >The paragraphs above are part of my text "The Embellishment of 
Truth",
> >published in "FOHAT", the magazine of the Edmonton Theosophical 
Society,
> >Canada, in the Summer 2005 issue.
> >
> >O o o O o o O o o O
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just Search. Find! 
http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new 
> MSN Search! Check it out!
>