[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


Mar 06, 2006 10:36 AM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline


“It may be true, it may be false, who knows?”


Carlos Cardoso Aveline


Dear Friends,

As we examine the “editorial policy” adopted by Mr. Daniel Caldwell and Mr. John Algeo, we may recognize in it an old pattern of ambiguity, doubt and indecision which dates back to Annie Besant’s time.

Since the 1890s, Adyar has been accumulating doubts and skepticism underneath its practice of blind belief and ritualistic authoritarianism.

1) In the 1890s, A. Besant and H. Olcott made a worldwide campaign against William Judge, accusing him of forging messages from the Masters. They created a Committee to judge him but the Committee did not do this. Once Besant and Olcott had won their political struggle for power against W. Q. Judge, they both gave signs they had repented from those accusations. Yet W. Q. Judge has NOT been declared inocent yet. Adyar leaders seem to say: “He may be guilty, he may innocent, who knows? And who is anyone to know?” Indeed, thus began the policy of power-ambiguity.

2) Let’s see another example. C. W. Leadbeater went to Mars and Mercury and had many other absurd fancies about talking to the Masters, about being an Initiate, about a Second Coming of Jesus Christ, etc. Yet even now Adyar authorities say: “C.W.L. may be right, he may be wrong, who knows? And who are you to judge him?” A firmly ‘agnostic’ position about obvious facts. Those who want to see more sincerity are systematically accused of being arrogant, authoritarian and unbrotherly. Thus the discussion is astutely taken to the personal level and the facts are forgotten. If the questioners happen to be members of the Adyar Society, they are usually persecuted until they get out of it.

3) Let’s see one more fine example of such a systematic ambiguity. H. P. Blavatsky was the object of libels in the 1880s. The S.P.R., which made the false charges, abandoned all of them in the 1980s. Now, surprisingly enough, those lies are being published as part of H.P.B.’s own writings! And that’s not all. They are being published with no clear identification to the average reader. This editorial practice is tantamount to directly libelling her. What is Mr. John Algeo’s position? “These letters might be false, or they might be true”. What about Mr. Daniel Caldwell’s position? “These are ‘negative accounts’ and ‘testimonies’ ”. The fact that they are UTTER LIES apparently makes them look rather useful to those Editors’s eyes – for motives of their own. In the case of Caldwell’s book, the Masters of the Wisdom are, themselves, personally attacked.

4) Quite recently, in February 2006, Daniel Caldwell was identified by Paul Johnson in Theos-talk as the physical person behind false names such as “David Green”, “Terry Hobbes” and others, used to attack the ULT and other of his ‘blanks’. Confronted with Johnson’s facts, Caldwell does not clarify the issue. Caldwell’s friends seem to say: “The charges may be true, and they may be false, who knows? And who is anyone to judge Daniel?” Yet it is not a question of judging him as a person. It is a question of evaluating some of his actions -- which seem to belong to the same old pattern of “political”, systematical ambiguity.

Examples could be many, but these are enough for a start.

In the Adyar Society, since the 1890s, we have had a thick layer of top-down blind authority and blind belief, on one hand. On the other hand, there is a great amount of skepticism, doubts and unbelief.

These two extremes are kept in a dangerous equilibrium through the art of political and authoritarian ambiguity. Officially, this policy of “maybe yes, maybe not” is presented to the world as pure liberty of thought. Yet anyone who searches for a clear, unambiguous position is immediately accused of being intolerant and authoritarian, and of “disturbing harmony”.

Thus H.P.B. and William Judge, who had pure minds and hearts, are put at the same moral level as C.W.Leadbeater and James Wedgwood, whose ethical behaviour and spiritual discernment are located somewhere below sea level.

This ambiguity-system does not belong to Neo-Theosophists only. It has ancient roots. In the West, it started with the Greek Sophists.

While Greek ‘Philosophers’ (literally, ‘friends of the wisdom’) were commited to seek truth regardless of self-interest, “Sophists” like Protagoras held that truth can be adapted to anyone’s short term interests, like getting money and personal power. Hence the famous sentence: “Man ( i.e., one’s short term goals) is the measure of all things”.

The matter of the fact is that Sophism is not a process located exclusively outside of ourselves. It is also a role played by our lower quaternaries or outer personalities in producing self-delusions and a whole set of short-term interests and mayavic ideations which prevent us from seeing truth in a clear way.

If we have the patience and the courage needed, little by little we can get rid of it.

In the decades ahead, we should be able to perceive and understand more and more of these personal and collective mechanisms of self-delusion.

For this, two essential factors are: A) the courage to develop an independent thinking; and B) the loyal hearing to the ‘voice of the silence’ -- which is the voice of our own conscience. Both factors develop at the same time, and eventually such a process will stimulate buddhi-manas.

(On the other hand, active factors like blind belief, hatred and fear obviously tend to block Antahkarana, the manasic bridge between higher and lower selves.)

Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline

O o o o O o o o O o o o O o o o O

Com o MSN Spaces você divide seu blog, suas fotos, sua lista de música e muito mais com seus amigos! Crie já o seu espaço online e com seus amigos! E só entra no

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application