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

Why Discussing the Movement

Mar 07, 2006 11:44 AM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline

Dear Cass, Dear Steve,

Most theosophical magazines today ignore the theosophical movement itself, its difficulties,
its history, its need to get rid of some illusions in order to go ahead.

It was not so in HPB's time. She -- as the Masters in their Letters -- dedicated a lot of time and
energy discussing the living issues of the movement.

We have two diferent instances, in the theosophical movements, at least.

One is the literature, the map of the journey.

The other one is the movement itself, its groups and organizations, the common ground of mutual tests.

Both are necessary and useful contributions to the inner journey of every truth-seeker.

Once Radha Burnier wrote something like this:

"We need the theosophical movement in order to test our theories about universal brotherhood..."

And I think she was right.

It is not a question of winning or loosing. It is a question of understanding and sharing.

No one is above illusions. Everyone has the right and the duty to be sincere.

The movement is the result of our common actions and in-actions. If we feel responsible, we will share our views.

Best regards, Carlos.

From: Cass Silva <>
Subject: Re: Theos-World A PATTERN OF AMBIGUITY
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:15:48 -0800 (PST)

I simply view the historical and political debates as a waste of mental energy. In exactly the same vein that Jesus' teachings are able to stand on their own merit and are not dependant upon biblical interpretations or historical context. It appears nothing more than missionary or fiscal motive presenting itself as virtue.


Steven Levey <> wrote: Dear Carlos

You know, I think its possible that while students read all that you have presented, they may be, and quite possibly are, for the most part internalizing their reponses. In other words, we may never see in print a large satisfying acknowledgement of the evidence you are presenting from contributors on theos-talk, regarding Adyar, Mr. Caldwell, or Mr. Algeo. Or its opposite.
Yes, we have seen responses from those few who are obviously convinced of the errors as revealed by you (such as myself), and we have seen the responses of those few who are remaining openly skeptical. But these few, in either camp, are just a few. There are many who are obviously outwardly non-commental in their silence. However, it seems foolish to me to think that they are non-commental internally to themselves. This is probably going to be the way it is for the most part.
For one looking for responses, the lack of them may appear ambiguous, and those responses which are neither "hot nor cold" certainly are. But, again, in either case attempting to draw larger concusions over this seems an error.
So, if the conversations continue to focus on different subjects, there is really no way to know if this means that folks are changing the subject out of the need to remain agnostic over these issues, or just to make the discussion somewhat more accessable. In doing so, students may be thinking more about the implications of theosophical thought, than having to immediately make up their minds over these blunders that are actually over. Sure, they will continue in some form or another, but not the ones which have been recently in focus.
Don't get me wrong. Student's must choose to light their way with the actual Truth and ultimately discriminate between who is actually passing it on. Its just that it has to happen in their own time, regardless of the consequences of putting it off. As I see it, This is the Path.


carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:


�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

(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 voc� divide seu blog, suas fotos, sua lista de m�sica e
muito mais com seus amigos! Crie j� o seu espa�o online e com seus amigos! E
s� entra no

Yahoo! Groups Links

Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups Links

Seja um dos primeiros a testar o novo Windows Live Mail Beta.Acesse

[Back to Top]

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