[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |

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

Apr 18, 2006 11:54 AM

by carlosaveline

Daniel is wrong this time.=20 It is obvious that any sound historical research should establish whether = documents are authentic of fake. Once it is established documents are fake, there is no reason to keep think= ing of them night and day. One should leave them aside and go ahead. Instead of doing this, Daniel is trying to un-do Carrithers work. Carrithers had the stomach to go through all these analytical work with reg= ard to the Coulombs slanders, and played a keu role in having the Society f= or Psychical Research changing its position. In 1986, in part due to Carri= thers's efforts, the SPR did abandon all its charges of fraud against H.P.B= . That meant the Coulombs were abandoned as source os historical facts or = testimonies.=20 Daniel is trying to go the other way around. He is attempting to absorb th= ose lies into the theosophical literature.=20 As to "keeping certain things (slanders) to experienced theosophists", anyo= ne who reads me at Theos-talk can see I am open and frank, so this accusati= on does not stick. I just recognize the basic fact that forgeries are no d= ocuments and cannot be accepted in theosophical books.=20 The one who does not talk about Gregory Tillett's important biography of=20 C. W. Leadbeater is Daniel Caldwell.=20=20 I see Daniel writing much more about slanders against HPB, and describing t= hem as "testimonies", than about the true facts about C. W. Leadbeater, or = James Wedgwood, etc.=20=20 Regards, Carlos. De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com C=F3pia: Data:Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:23:35 -0000 Assunto:Theos-World Aveline Versus Carrithers???? & the Tillett biography, = etc. > Carlos Aveline writes: >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Here. . . is Daniel making propaganda of=20 > well-known slanders against H.P. Blavatsky, which=20 > he calls "firsthand testimonies". > In fact, they are second-hand and well-known lies. > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > Now compare Aveline's statement with that of > Walter Carrithers: >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ...Emma Coulomb's pamphlet...takes precedence over=20 > all others in standing at the very heart of the controversy=20 > raised by the Coulombs, comprising as it does the FIRSTHAND=20 > unadulterated TESTIMONY of the chief accusers, together with=20 > documentary "proofs" adduced for their claims.=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > Caps added. >=20 > In several emails Carlos tries to tell readers that > Emma Coulomb's account is not testimony, is not firsthand > testimony.... >=20 > To pretend that this is not Coulomb's testimony is downright > silly. And to try to hide it and say that it should only be > available to researchers or "experienced" Theosophists is > in my opinion also equally silly. Oh, heavens, inquirers and > new students might be confused and not be able to handle it, > reminds me of some of the excuses I've heard before for > keeping Tillett's book on Leadbeater in a special place not > easily available in a Theosophical Library. I once was told by > a librarian of a certain Theosophical library that the Tillett > biography was kept in a reference area away from the general > books because inquirers and new students might be confused > by the contents, and OBTW, the book is very one sided and only > gives the slanders against CWL.... >=20 > Sound familiar???? >=20 > OBTW, below is a link to Emma Coulomb's testimony about > the Masters: >=20 > http://blavatskyarchives.com/coulombandhodgson.htm#Coulomb >=20 > Daniel > http://hpb.cc >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"=20 > wrote: > > > > Notice that in what Carlos writes below > > he does NOT address the issue concerning > > the reprint of the entire Coulomb pamphlet > > by the Edmonton Theosophical Society. > >=20 > > An inquiring mind might also ask: > >=20 > > IF....IF Daniel is circulating "slanders," IS the=20 > > ETS ALSO guilty of ciculating > > "slanders" by publishing the ENTIRE Coulomb pamphlet > > and with NO WORD (not even in the FINAL pages) warning the modern=20 > > reader about the content of this "disgusting" pamphlet??? > >=20 > > These are the kinds of questions one should be asking as > > one tries to understand Carlos' reasoning in this matter > > and the validity of his contentions concerning this subject. > >=20 > > I hope Carlos does NOT have a double standard in assessing and=20 > > judging such matters. > >=20 > > Remember: > >=20 > > "...what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." > >=20 > > Personally I do NOT believe I was ciculating "slanders" and I do > > not believe that ETS was circulating "slanders". Both TPH by=20 > > publishing my book and the ETS by reprinting the Coulomb pamphlet=20 > > were both performing a needed service of providing interested=20 > > individuals with relevant historical documents. It is for each=20 > > individual reading these two books to determine for themselves the=20 > > truthfulness or falsity of the statements made. > >=20 > > And of course, it IS Emma Coulomb's TESTIMONY even though Carlos=20 > > apparently wants to play a word game here. > >=20 > > I close this posting with a quote about the Coulomb pamphlet from=20 > my=20 > > late friend Walter A. Carrithers, Jr. (who wrote under the assumed=20 > > name of Adlai E. Waterman): > >=20 > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D > > It is safe to calculate that for every ten thousand persons who=20 > have=20 > > heard and believe that Richard Hodgson "exposed" H.P. Blavatsky as=20 > a=20 > > fraud and imposter, not more than one has read his "expose;" and,=20 > > that for every thousand of his readers, hardly one has ever seen=20 > > Emma Coulomb's pamphlet.=20 > >=20 > > And yet, by logic and every rule of common sense, the latter=20 > > document takes precedence over all others in standing at the very=20 > > heart of the controversy raised by the Coulombs, comprising as it=20 > > does the firsthand unadulterated TESTIMONY of the chief accusers,=20 > > together with documentary "proofs" adduced for their claims.=20 > >=20 > > Yet, strange to say, practically no attention was paid to this=20 > > PRICELESS PAMPHLET - least of all by indignant Theosophists [like=20 > > Carlos?????] who put no stock in what Mme. Coulomb might have to=20 > > say! -, not until, that is, the appearance in 1937 of Mrs.=20 > Hastings'=20 > > booklet, Defence of Madame Blavatsky (Volume II) The "Coulomb=20 > > Pamphlet". Unfortunately, Mrs. Hastings did not live to complete=20 > > her promising study of the case.=20 > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >=20 > > I have added caps to Walter's own words in describing the Coulomb=20 > > pamphlet: > >=20 > > TESTIMONY and PRICELESS PAMPHLET !!!! > >=20 > > Daniel > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline"=20 > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > I don't see contradiction in my two paragraphs quoted by Daniel.=20 > > >=20 > > > Indeed, in his disgusting and sad book, there is "no word from=20 > > the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting he is publishing documents=20 > > which have no trace of truth in them whatsoever". > > >=20 > > > He only says that those texts are not likely to be true, or=20 > > something similar, and thus he follows the well-known "maybe=20 > > policy".=20 > > >=20 > > > And even this he writes in a way which the average reader will=20 > > most likely NOT SEE.=20 > > >=20 > > > John Algeo did the same thing with the HPB Letters. Some 20 per=20 > > cent of the texts published by Algeo in his "HPB Letters" volume=20 > I -- > > - are fake.=20 > > >=20 > > > Caldwell was more modest -- but then, he was the pioneer in=20 > > publishing semi-unidentified lies and libels as if they were part=20 > > of the theosophical literature.=20 > > >=20 > > > In the introduction of his unfortunate boook, Caldwell=20 > > calls "testimonies" those open and shameful lies. > > >=20 > > > No honest editor or Historian can do such a thing. I still=20 > hope=20 > > in the future Caldwell will realize that this is not the proper=20 > > thing to do.=20 > > >=20 > > > Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com > > >=20 > > > Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com > > >=20 > > > C=F3pia: > > >=20 > > > Data:Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:33:45 -0000 > > >=20 > > > Assunto:Theos-World "No proper identification": Do we have a=20 > good=20 > > example with the ETS reprint??? > > >=20 > > > > Readers, > > > >=20 > > > > Please notice the progression here: > > > >=20 > > > > Originally Carlos wrote: > > > >=20 > > > > "In the disgusting volume The Esoteric World of Madame=20 > > Blavatsky =97 > > > > while believing the editor has selected truthful documents =97=20 > the > > > > reader will bump into many of the lies written against HPB.=20 > > There he > > > > will see two texts by Emma Coulomb (pp. 35-36 and pp. 210-215)=20 > > with > > > > no word from the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting he is=20 > > publishing > > > > documents which have no trace of truth in them whatsoever." > > > >=20 > > > > Notice Carlos' words: > > > >=20 > > > > "....no word from the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting ...." > > > >=20 > > > > Now after I have pointed out repeatedly that this is simply=20 > not=20 > > true=20 > > > > by quoting directly from my book several statements showing=20 > that=20 > > > > what Carlos wrote is not accurate, Carlos apparently backs off=20 > > from=20 > > > > his "NO WORD" stance and writes instead: > > > >=20 > > > > "Only in the final pages of his sad book he made commentaries=20 > > > > admitting those 'texts' were likely not authentic." > > > >=20 > > > > Well I guess we should be happy with his apparent concession=20 > and=20 > > > > retraction of his original statement!!! > > > >=20 > > > > But now we must puzzle over his definition of FINAL in the=20 > > > > phrase "the FINAL pages".... > > > >=20 > > > > because more than 100 pages BEFORE the final pages of the book=20 > I=20 > > > > wrote at the appropriate place about the Coulomb attack having=20 > > no=20 > > > > solid foundation.... > > > >=20 > > > > Anyway moving on.... > > > >=20 > > > > If Carlos is really "upset" because I gave "no proper=20 > > > > identification" about the Coulomb testimony, then is the=20 > > following=20 > > > > example another example of what Carlos would consider "no=20 > proper=20 > > > > identification." > > > >=20 > > > > In 1995, the Edmonton Theosophical Society (who is also the=20 > > > > publisher of Fohat where Carlos originally wrote his above=20 > > quoted=20 > > > > words about my book) REPRINTED the ENTIRE 112 pages of Madame=20 > > > > Coulomb's "disgusting" (to use Aveline's description)=20 > pamphlet.=20 > > > >=20 > > > > They published the ENTIRE pamphlet and sold it. A=20 > correspondent=20 > > of=20 > > > > mine originally wrote me informing me that he had bought this=20 > > > > reprint and I in turn bought copies although I had a copy of=20 > the=20 > > > > original.=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Nowhere in the reprint by ETS is there ONE WORD warning=20 > today's=20 > > > > readers about the contents of this volume....not even in the=20 > > FINAL=20 > > > > pages of this reprint!! > > > >=20 > > > > Maybe Carlos should dash off a letter to FOHAT and ETS telling=20 > > them=20 > > > > that they should have done differently....that they should not=20 > > have=20 > > > > reprinted this DISGUSTING volume...and with "no proper=20 > > > > identification." !!! > > > >=20 > > > > Daniel > > > > http://hpb.cc > > > >=20 > > > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Yahoo! Groups Links >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra. > Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite > http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=3Dcarlosavel= ine&_l=3D1,1145377426.428052.29435.arrino.terra.com.br,13336,Des15,Des15 >=20 > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra. > Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 17/04/2006 / Vers=E3o: 4.4.= 00/4742 > Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/ >=20 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Daniel Versus Walter Carrithers?***From:*"danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>

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