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

Open debate will do the rest

Mar 12, 2006 11:00 AM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline

Vladimir, John and Bruce,

The most disastrous fancies created by Leadbeater and Besant -- like the Christ's Second Coming in the 20th century -- are but partial consequences of denying the "Prayag Letter", as well as ignoring the Letter 10 (non-chronological edition) in the Mahatma Letters, and leaving aside many other texts by the Masters and HPB, which denounce and explain the need to fight dogmatic religions.

Such religions have been the greastest source of ignorance and suffering in the last 15 centuries (as said in the Letter 10/88).

So, this is NOT a question of anger, or revenge, or fight for power with the Adyar TS. Not at all.

It is about being frank, confident, outspoken, honest. No one is labelling Adyar in a blind way. We are discussing proven, documented facts -- facts which our brothers and sisters of the Adyar Society can check and verify for themselves. (If anything I say is proved to be wrong I will be glad to correct myself.)

In the next issue of "FOHAT", there will be, I think, a text inviting students to act, so that Judge is finally declared innocent of forging messages from the Mahatmas, as he was falsely accused
by Annie Besant and H. Olcott in the 1890s.

But such an action for "Justice to Judge" is not an emotional or short-term movement, as long as I understand it.

People who will ask for justice to W. JUdge will be open to evidences, open to the truth, and indeed I intend to ask Adyar leaders to open their archives and historical texts which have remained unduly secret up to now, as Ernest Pelletier clarifies in his book "The Judge Case".

Truth is often the result of open contrast and that is what the movement deserves. This is
idea is an essential part of HPB's teachings, which has been ignored even by more than one sincere student, either a Blavatsky reader or not.

Every theosophist is in principle sincere: open debate will do the rest, and thus the movement will
improve a lot.

Best regards, Carlos.

From: "robert_b_macd" <>
Subject: Re: Theos-World Olcott denying HPB?
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:22:56 -0000

Vladimir & John,

The controversy mentioned rose up around what has come to be referred
to as "The Prayag Letter".  Letter 30 (ML-134) is a letter written by
Blavatsky to Sinnet concerning the Masters' thoughts on Orthodox
Brahmanism, and its entrenchment in the minds of the Prayag
Theosophists of Allahabad, the group from which Chakravarti came.
Ernest Pelletier in his work "The Judge Case: A Conspiracy Which
Ruined the Theosophical Cause" devotes an entire appendix, "Appendix
B" to the issues around this letter.  In "The Path", Vol. 9 March
1895, pp. 430-431, Judge reprints part of this letter and challenges
Besant to come clean on whether she believed that Blavatsky had forged
the letter as there had been reports coming to him to this effect.

In "The Theosophist" Vol. 16, April 1895, pp. 475-476, Olcott
delivered his "Postscript" with his judgment that the message was
forged, that Blavatsky was perfectly capable of such, and he even
managed to lend validation to Solovyoff's libels.

Judge countered in "The Path" reference from my previous post.  Others
such as Annie Besant, Basil Crump, and Franz Hartmann also waded into
the debate.  "Appendix B" documents all of this.  An understanding of
this appendix is crucial to understanding what was happening in India
at that time, and why Olcott sided with superstitious orthodox
Brahmans over HPB.  Brahmans had political power based on
superstitious interpretations of their religion, they did not want to
give this up and worked incessantly on Olcott over the years trying to
remake Theosophy in their image.  Besant was the ally they needed to
finally do the trick.  First Blavatsky, then Judge saw right through
this and their reputations therefore had to be blackened.  This is how
creeds entered into the Theosophical Society.


--- In, samblo@... wrote:
> Vladimir,
>     May you be warm during the Russian winter. I wondered about same
> viewpoint you did and I am not all read up on the contention about
Olcott. so, I
> Googled for it to see if I could find an online post of the June
1895 Theosophist
> "postscript" article in full online so I could read it and see what
it is all
> about. Personally I like Olcutt. As I just Googled yesterday I am not
> progressed on the Google listings. What little I have seen so far
seems to be that he
> was the President at the time and it was Annie Besant that made the
> remarks and then filed a formal complaint that as President he was
forced to
> take into process. I am not sure at this early point that it
actually was
> Olcott that originated the negative comments but I am illiterate as
yet on the
> topic. I think I also read that there was an earlier Publishing than
the June
> 1895 postscript by Besant. Maybe Jerry or Gregory or Daniel or John
snatch can
> show us the articles.
>     Was it you that mentioned a while ago the "New Acropolis?" Is
there a
> branch there you are familiar with? Martin Leidermen a member of
this Forum was a
> Director of both the Paris and the LA Cal. Branch some years ago, I
> the LA Calif. branch for a while long ago.
> John
> [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