Re: Theos-World Self-Introduction
Feb 08, 2006 09:24 PM
by Bart Lidofsky
Uncharitable? Does that mean telling the truth? Carlos treats Blavatsky
as perfect and above all criticism. Not even the Mahatmas considered
themselves to be either.
carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
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
"Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all
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
in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H."
- Koot Hoomi.
﻿Now one may ask what is happening here? I can't know for sure what
Bart is alluding to, but here is how I understand it (and please
correct me if I'm wrong). Carlos comes close to sounding like he has
put HPB on some sort of pedestal and commenced worshiping her.
However, to read it that way would be uncharitable.
They laughed at the Wright Brothers. The also laughed at the Marx
Brothers. Carlos has been advocating treating Blavatsky as a deity. I
called a spade a spade.
Bart then teases
Carlos with the kind of reply that the enemies of Truth so often trot
out in these types of instances giving us the KH quote (a quote
referring to the capitalized pronoun "Him" that Christians are so fond
of) out of context. At this point bells should be going off in the
head of every theosophist who reads this and we should be asking
ourselves how to understand the principles of this passage from Carlos
so that when fellow theosophists are attacked for allegedly worshiping
anyone, we know how to defend them.
I certainly respect Blavatsky. Enough not to turn her into something
that, from her writings, it is clear that she despised.
﻿When Carlos chooses to defend his Teacher of the sacred or "sacred
Teacher" it is only because he understands this fact. Blavatsky died
a poor woman writing to the very end trying to promote the spirit of
the movement that she helped initiate. She did not profit materially
from founding the Theosophical Society. In fact most of the little
income she made was used to help further the cause. If she didn't
profit then why did she do it? As I understand it, it was done out of
love for humanity and this makes her a Great Soul (excuse the
capitals) and therefore deserving of respect.
All I can say is, huh? Next thing, you're going to say that the
Holocaust never happened. Wait a second, your magazine already did.
﻿In as much as we are all trying to help others along this same Path
and don't do it for money but rather for love of humanity, we all
deserve to be shown this same respect. For example, if Bart were to
accuse Daniel of being a CIA disinformation artist specializing in HPB
and Theosophical matters who is trying to plant divisive ideas within
the body of theosophical knowledge, we should all have to defend
Daniel from Bart and I am sure that we all would. Daniel has put in
thousands of unpaid hours helping theosophists and if he has made any
errors, then it must be assumed that the errors were out of ignorance
(a defect that we should all have the humility to acknowledge having).
The public are not experts
In other words, you consider yourself better than everybody else.
Unless you, too lack the means to discriminate between truth and lie,
accepted theory and rejected theory, etc. If you do have that lack, then
and therefore lack the means to discriminate between truth and lie,
accepted theory and rejected theory, etc.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application