Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00198)

I think I'm getting the idea.  We can do a test.   

Someone can write a review of Daniel's book and insert opposing 
views from other works and Carlos' criticism.  If it is not a fair 
review of Daniel's book, it will be a more comprehensive history 
than what Daniel wrote.  It also will provide a sense of the 
environment in which Daniel's book was written.

I haven't read Daniel's book, so maybe I should review it and add 
the appropriate work of other writers and throw in a few of Carlos' 
thoughts.  

We'll see if my review of Daniel's book is confusing.

Best regards,
Krsanna Duran




--- 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!
>