FW: To Dallas on Theos-net
Feb 07, 2006 04:11 PM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck
From: carlosaveline cardoso aveline [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: To Dallas on Theos-net
This is another message of mine which does not get through. It might be my
computer or some other reason.
Could you help me by sending this to Theos-net? You might say to people I
asked you to do so since the message did not go through...
Daniel Caldwell has kindly recirculated his material about some of
my ideas. Thanks. Here is my answer to what he had to say.
The text below was published in "Fohat" and "The Aquarian Theosophist"
after his own.
Best regards, Carlos.
LIBELS AGAINST THE TEACHER: A TEST TO EVERYONE
Carlos Cardoso Aveline
Since Mr. Daniel Caldwell now sees that publishing libels against H.P.
Blavatsky is no longer accepted as "just normal" in theosophical circles,
it is quite natural for him to try to criticize those who come up to defend
the founder of the Theosophical Movement.
As to me, he is welcome to do so. I would be proud to be attacked instead of
her. To be critized for defending HPB is good karma, not only to me, but
to all those who have the opportunity and the priviledge to do this. I
also happen to be among those students who have a heartfelt commitment with
their souls not to be silent while utter lies and libels are publicized
against their sacred Teacher.
The way Daniel Caldwell and John Algeo - editors of "The Esoteric World of
Madame Blavatsty and of "The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky, volume I " - see
Theosophy is based in a certain moral relativism.
It seems that for this kind of editor everything can be true and everything
can be false, according to their own interests. Will publishing libels
against HPB make a book "hotter" in the market?
May belittling HPB help keeping the structure of the Adyar Society the way
it is now, Leadbeaterian, churchlike and ritualistic? They won't think
twice. They do not seem to care too much about truth.
Before starting with this practice of adopting as true the same old and
proved lies against an Initiate, Daniel Caldwell had already surrendered to
the little editorial "paparazzi" pleasures of that which Ms. Radha Burnier
once called "keyhole curiosity" - that is, an exaggeration of, and an
undue attention to, outer, smaller details about the life of great beings.
>From that level of editorial practice to actively promoting falsehoods about
HPB's life, at least one or two further unfortunate steps were taken by
Algeo and Caldwell.
[I will not accept discussing the karma of publishing abuses against the
very names of sacred Adept-Teachers, which Caldwell also did upon
publicizing the libels fabricated by Emma Coulomb against HPB.]
As to attacking HPB, though, not everybody in the Adyar TS thinks like Mr.
Algeo and Mr. Caldwell. I am happy to see that Ms. Radha Burnier and
several other members of the Adyar TS do not seem to entirely agree with
Caldwell's and Algeo's policy of circulating libels.
While it is always disagreable to go into minor and external details of
other peoples lives (except perhaps for paparazzi readers) - it is not
always useless or harmful. Years ago, Walter Carrithers, Jr., for instance,
did go into details in HPB's life in order to prove her innocent - and he
succeeded. Daniel Caldwell is going the other way around. He is walking in
the opposite direction - and he will not succeeed. The recent, now
growing movement in defense of HPB will prove that there are still those
who defend Truth in the Esoteric Movement. And Truth prevails.
Now, should we get personally angry at Daniel Caldwell, John Algeo and at
those who make similar choices in life? Not at all.
Those of us who may be tempted by feelings of anger should meditate in the
stoic philosophy of Epictetus, a freed slave and sage in the Roman Empire,
a man who taught:
"The untrained response to robbers and thugs and to those who otherwise err
is outrage and retribution. Wrongdoers need to be rightly understood to form
the correct response to their behaviour. The appropriate response to bad
deeds is pity for the perpetrators, since they have adopted unsound beliefs
and are deprived of the most valuable human capacity : the ability to
differentiate between what is truly good and bad for them. Their original
moral intuitions have been distorted, so they have no chance at inner
serenity. Whenever someone does something foolish, pity him rather than
yield to hatred and anger as so many do." (In "The Art of Living, the
Manual by Epictetus", a new interpretation by Sharon Lebell,
HarperSanFrancisco, HarperCollins, USA, 1994, 113 pp., see p. 102.)
As to Mr. Caldwell's arguments in his more recent letters published in Fohat
(Fall 2005, pp. 53, 54 and 68), I am not sure that I have the required
patience to answer everyone of his minor issues and gossipy details - a
kind of patience that only that keyhole curiosity mentioned above can
provide. Yet there are a few things I can say.
Mr. Caldwell refuses to see the radical, oceanic difference between
"negative accounts" and "proved lies and libels". Negative accounts about
HPB are welcome in my view, but not lies. Not Libels. Enemies, when
sincere, teach us a lot. Liars, and those who publicize lies, are made of a
different stuff, whether they praise or blame. Mr. Caldwell accepts
Solovyov and the Coulombs as historical sources. His position is outdated.
He does not want to accept the fact that the Society for Psychical
Research, SPR, abandoned in 1986 all charges against HPB, so no one now,
except Caldwell and Algeo, will take Solovyov or the Coulombs as
"historical sources" as to HPB's life.
With regard to the publication done by the Edmonton Theosophical Society -
it was made in a correct way and it has nothing to do whatsoever with Mr.
Caldwell's "editorial" work.
Mr. Caldwell and I seem to agree that the esoteric movement should not be
afraid of contrast and polemics when necessary. I would say that a certain
amount of rajas (movement) will serve to go beyond tamas, inertia, and
sooner or later can open room for satwa, a higher harmony and rythm.
Yet Caldwell defends the contrast between liars and sincere people, that is,
he wants the disguised "contrast" of Solovyov, Coulomb and their followers
against the teaching, the teacher and the Elder Brothers.
That is not what HPB meant by contrast. The contrast she meant - also
recommended by the Mahatmas - was the paradox between different aspects of
reality, as honestly seen by different people.
Surprising as it may sound to Mr. Caldwell and to Mr. Algeo - HPB did not
mean to defend the free circulation of proved offensive lies in a movement
whose motto is "there is no religion higher than truth".
As to the origin of libels against HPB which were fabricated under the form
of letters ascribed to herself - the same libels now enthusiastically
accepted as "possibly true" by John Algeo and Daniel Caldwell - I must
invite students to meditate upon some words of an Adept-Teacher.
In a letter dated October 1884, a Master announces that the enemies of the
theosophical movement - having an active support from dugpas and liars -
aim at presenting false letters to attack H. P. Blavatsky. The Master says
that these texts are "pretended letters alleged to have come from H.P.B.'s
laboratory", and that they consist of "forged documents showing and
confessing fraud and planning to repeat it". The Adept-teacher explains
that the false texts were made with an "enthusiastic help from the Dugpas,
in Bootan and the Vatican!" (See "The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett",
T.U. P., Pasadena, CA, USA, 1992, Letter LV, p. 322.)
This is the kind of stuff Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Algeo have been
subreptitiously circulating as if they were true, while more and more
theosophists fortunately open their eyes worldwide and start defending,
first, the Truth, second, the inner core of the movement, and third -
Important as it is, HPB's personality is perhaps the least decisive of the
three factors mentioned above. The key element here is that behind the
attack to HPB there is an attack to the core of the esoteric movement, to
the subtle magnetic connection between the Sacred Adept-Teachers and the
Students as a whole, at the living link or connection which she helped
create and establish.
One aspect of this sacred magnetic connection is referred to in
Bulwer-Lytton's well-known occult novel "Zanoni".
At the end of chapter four (book one), a sincere friend of Zanoni's says
that he considers "this illustrious gentleman" his friend and, in future, he
will take any whisperings against Zanoni's honour and reputation as an
insult against himself.
Indeed, esoteric tradition states that sincere students have no option left
but valiantly defend their Teachers against unjust attacks - if such attacks
are indeed unjust. If the students see the attacks, examine it, see that
the attacks are false and yet they do not defend the source of their
learning, their inner magnetic link to the source of the sacred teaching
will wither away in a process of which they may have scarce
Hence comes the occult test or "probation" present in such whispering
As to Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Algeo, they can still think once more and
abandon the practice of publishing libels against HPB. It may be unlikely to
occur, perhaps - yet it is still in their hands to do that.
And every student of Theosophy has some degree of actual responsibility with
regard to the adoption and circulation of such dugpa-libels as if they were
part of Theosophical literature. It is up to us to investigate the meaning
and importance of this episode, and then to follow our own hearts.
( Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline )
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application