To Jerry On Cooper and Tillett
Apr 21, 2006 09:33 AM
Again, expressions of personal anger and frustration do not change my views of things and I do not have time for that.
"Regarding your quote from the Canadian Theosophist of Cooper's editorial
objectives: However you may interpret Cooper's meaning, it is all moot
in light of the published volume of letters. The point is moot because
Cooper passed away long before this volume appeared. Therefore, the
editorial policies and results of the published collected letters series
is completely the responsibility of John Algeo who is the editor of
record. Any criticisms of the end product needs to be directed to John
Algeo and his "committee", not John Cooper or Boris de Zirkoff."
John Cooper's either opening the door to the not-properly-identified slanders against HPB, or keeping that door open, is of great importance in order to understand the process leading to Algeo's disaster. I am studying the vibration patterns underlying it.
As you build future patterns, you have to work from the basis of old patterns. That is why, at the present stage of the work, these background patterns emerge in Theos-talk. You must have read the important testimony given us yesterday by Gregory Tillett. John Cooper passed away but the results of his actions are with us.
This is what I am trying to understand in order to work now and in the future with regard to the HPB Letters. Algeo did not get things from nothing. HPB Letters is an living, evolving process. It is time now for me to start to get data about its background. I believe Boris de Zirkoff could have been more careful about the results of his translations and actions, but hindsight is much easier than foreseing things, so there is not a personal criticism in my noting that fact.
Thus, when I show the absurd of John Cooper saying that he would "publish all HPB Letters", even those of unlegitimate origin, that is, those not written by her (!) -- this is something significant. It shows the backgrond of things and how they started.
(I have Algeo's "Committee" mapped out in a reasonable way and have interacted personally with Algeo, Dara, Joy and Daniel, having good news of Nicholas' position. Now, with Tillett's and your testimonies, I get to the previous stage of things.)
"Concerning whether or not you quote me: Anything I post, for better or
worse, becomes public and is liable to be ignored, used or misused.
Since you asked, I request that you leave me completely out of any and
all of your campaigns to "re-educate" your readers. While I may agree
to some extent with some of the issues that you raise here, I do not
agree with your methods or tone. Rather, I believe that because of your
methods, your efforts are causing far more harm than good for the very
things which you champion. In other words, please do not quote me,
mention my name, or involve me in any way in your posts."
This is no surprise. Those who do not have intellectual courage will only say what they really think in outbursts of anger an then repent, and ask other people do not quote them. Not a surprise.
As to me, you know I am educating but myself . Ill-will and angered fancies will not change facts.
As to your testimony about Cooper/Algeo, it is weaker and poorer than others I already have, and I will be able to respect your wish not to be responsible in future for what you wrote here. I willl respect you irresponsibility for your words at least publically. I will quote them only in a few private correspondences -- if that comes to my mind. Happy now?
Gregory Tillett wrote it was a LIE of yours (his word) to say that Cooper's work was not used by Algeo. As to you, right after admitting you were in error in that and correcting yourself -- you had the nerve to criticize me, for my own honest admission of a previous and small mistake of mine!
But your mistake was not a LIE. It was only a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, and hypocrites rarely admit them.
We should develop a culture where people are encouraged to, and respected for, openly correcting their mistakes.
When I suggest that Daniel Caldwell and John Algeo should admit they made a mistake in editting not-properly-identified SLANDERS against HPB, this is but a sound and well-established editorial tradition.
Professional editors correct their mistakes in a public and open way.
Reading your testimony and the text by Tillett on Algeo's work , and on Algeo's lack of Ethics with regard to Cooper's work and family, I can only consider both your testimonies should be part of History.
In the years ahead, the public has the right to know what Algeo did in the opinion of Jerry Hejka-Ekins and Gregory Tillett, and we have the duty to preserve these two testimonies. So I suggest you have the courage and humbleness to correct your testimony on those facts, update it, moderate your language if you want, and send it to Theos-talk readers in a firm and quotable form.
Yet I will not publish the words of a man who asks me not to make him responsible for what he writes.
Persevering students tend to go beyond personality-blaming games.
Behind elegant courtesy, there is often a great amount of repressed anger and fear.
Fortunately, behind the layers of self-delusion one finds the inner center of light and peace.
Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline
Data:Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:35:20 -0700
Assunto:Re: Theos-World Re: Jerry, Cooper & Zirkoff
> Dear Carlos,
> You wrote:
> >Now or later, you will probably get to see that I really do not care about them. Then you will calm down, or
> >not -- it is up to you.
> Apparently no one ever advised you that telling people how or what they
> feel is inappropriate. Indeed it is. Further, to accuse others of
> certain feelings and then denigrate them for allegedly having those
> feelings is a form of ad hominem argumentation which is commonly used
> among adolescents. I'm sure that you can do better than that.
> Regarding your twelve points, I note that you have:
> 1. Retracted your statement that John Cooper edited the "Letters to the
> Masters of Wisdom."
> 2. Clarified that you have a high opinion of Boris deZirkoff.
> 3. And further wrote that you "nothing to criticize as to John Cooper's
> In light of your retractions-clarifications-corrections on these three
> points. I think we can consider the discussion in these areas closed.
> Regarding your quote from the Canadian Theosophist of Cooper's editorial
> objectives: However you may interpret Cooper's meaning, it is all moot
> in light of the published volume of letters. The point is moot because
> Cooper passed away long before this volume appeared. Therefore, the
> editorial policies and results of the published collected letters series
> is completely the responsibility of John Algeo who is the editor of
> record. Any criticisms of the end product needs to be directed to John
> Algeo and his "committee", not John Cooper or Boris deZirkoff.
> So, if we are in agreement on this point, then I think we can also come
> to closure here too.
> Concerning new issues you have raised: you wrote:
> >John Patrick Deweney had already published an article hinting at what you wrote below -- in "Theosophical
> >History". You may have read that.
> I am an associate editor of Theosophical History. In this capacity, it
> is my responsibility to read and comment on the articles before they are
> published. So, yes, I did read Pat Deveney's review and made my
> comments to the author and editor before the review was actually
> To move along...
> Concerning whether or not you quote me: Anything I post, for better or
> worse, becomes public and is liable to be ignored, used or misused.
> Since you asked, I request that you leave me completely out of any and
> all of your campaigns to "re-educate" your readers. While I may agree
> to some extent with some of the issues that you raise here, I do not
> agree with your methods or tone. Rather, I believe that because of your
> methods, your efforts are causing far more harm than good for the very
> things which you champion. In other words, please do not quote me,
> mention my name, or involve me in any way in your posts.
> Further, if you have not already seen it, I righly recommend that you
> read and consider Greg Tillett's recent post on this discussion board
> disclosing that he has evidence that John Algeo used John Cooper's
> research in the first volume of the "Letters of H.P. Blavatsky." This
> is a very serious allegation, and if proved, has very serious
> implications. You may know that Dr. Tillett is closely involved with the
> dispute between the Cooper Family and TSA (particularly John Algeo).
> On a related matter: You asked if I would like to make any changes or
> corrections to my previous statements. At this time, no, I do not, with
> one exception where I wrote:
> "Not a singe word of John Cooper's research (nor mine) was included in vol. 1 of the "Letters of H.P. Blavatsky" edited
> by John Algeo."
> My above statement should have been preceded by the phrase, "As far as I know,...." I routinely use such phrases and regret that I neglected to do so in this case. Nevertheless, In light of Dr. Tillett's new information, this statement may very well prove to be absolutely incorrect. So, pending further information, I defer to Dr. Tillett's correction, and completely withdraw my previous statement.
> Before I close, I would like to share with you a bit of unsolicited
> advice with the hope that it is accepted in the spirit that I offer it:
> You wrote:
> "I usually do not write to Theos-talk from my library, so I normally do not have that support in checking
> Though, we as human beings are prone to error, we still have a primary
> responsibility to avoid (as much as possible) making them. If what we
> write or speak is nothing more than personal conclusions from half
> digested information and mis-remembered information, then where is our
> credibility? Why should anyone take what we have to say with more than
> a grain of salt, if we do not even take the time to verify our
> information before broadcasting it?
> Credibility is something that is earned over a long period of time
> through responsible speech, action and word: and that credibility is
> easily be lost over a single unwise action, mis-spoken or mis-written
> word. If you have to write, by all means, use that library and use it
> With this, I think we can come to closure and to a close.
> Best wishes,
> carlosaveline wrote:
> >Dear Jerry,
> >I hope you are able to pay atention to what I am going to write.
> >I do not care about your personal emotions of anger and frustration, or whatever you call them.
> >Now or later, you will probably get to see that I really do not care about them. Then you will calm down, or
> >not -- it is up to you.
> >I will put this in numbered items.
> >1) Everything I write in Theos-talk is naturally open to examination and correction. I do not have to pretend
> >to myself, or to others, that I know everything.
> >2) I usually do not write to Theos-talk from my library, so I normally do not have that support in checking
> >things. I bring from home some texts which need more care, but almost all reactions to people's texts are
> >done away from home/library and on the spot, like this one.
> >3) Of course I know C. Jinarajadasa made the first editions of "Letters >From the Masters of The Wisdom". After
> >all, I edited the two volumes (published in one sole volume) in their Brazilian edition, late in the 1990s.
> >(I also translated and edited the "Mahatma Letters" and many other theosohhical books, besides having seven
> >books of mine published so far. For several years I was a National Lecturer of the Adyar TS in Brazil, etc.)
> >4) I was wrong in saying that John Cooper did a bad job in editing "Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom"
> >(LMW). It was John Clarke, a British citizen, and NOT John Cooper, who prepared the sixth edition (1988) of
> >LMW, first series (only first series), and he worked in Adyar for some time as he did that. He changed the
> >sequence and number of letters. Personally, I guess the work could have been better. So, I gladly admit my
> >mistake in that. Admitting mistakes is, I believe, pedagogically correct. None of us have to pretend we are
> >perfect, especially when writing quickly and not always being able to check data. Is that clear? Erase that
> >mmistake of mine. John Clarke -- not John Cooper... Beg your pardon. (I saw that mistake after sending my
> >previous posting).
> >5) I already told you that I had nothing to criticize as to John Cooper's INTENTIONS. Now I can add: I have
> >very little to criticize in his work; just a couple of sentences in his letter published in the "Canadian
> >Theosophist", 1991. And even this is a partial, qualified criticism, as your will see in item number 09, below.
> >6) I have told you I have a high opinion and deep gratitute, as a student, towards Boris de
> >Zirkoff. The movement owes him a lot and I am well aware of that, in spite of the fact that he was not perfect,
> >as nobody is. I happen to know some admirable aspects of his life, his living in the Eeks' home, etc., which
> >only makes me recognize him as a great human being and as a most significant theosophist.
> >7) I have deep respect for your friendship with Boris and John Cooper. Time may show you I am not pretending in
> >this. Such a respect is entirely independent from your anger, frustration or otherwise. Personality clashes
> >fail to impress me too much.
> >8) As there are things I DON'T KNOW, perhaps you will admit that there are also other things YOU DON'T KNOW,
> >about HPB Letters. Thus dialogue is sometimes interesting. I am fully aware of the fact that my interest in
> >the background-of-things have been limited up to now. So what? Backround has its importance, as future facts
> >also have. I am open to correct my mistakes whenever I identify them. I thank you for your testimony on FACTS.
> > John Patrick Deweney had already published an article hinting at what you wrote below -- in "Theosophical
> >History". You may have read that. But in your text below, you were stronger and clearer than Deweney.
> >9) My following quotation is accurate. In order to describe the first of his editorial principles for his
> >future work on the HPB Letters, John Cooper said:
> >"All letters written by H.P.B. will be included. These will include letters whose authenticity is doubtful, as
> >will be indicated in the editorial apparatus." Which is, Jerry, tantamount to say: "All letters written by H.
> >P. Blavatsky will be published, including those which have not been written by her." This is the problem.
> >10) This is a precedent. True, it comes ultimately from Zirkoff. Of course, it does not mean Cooper would not
> >publish the false letters with due identification, a question which is of critical importance (see the false
> >letters commented by HPB and correctly published by Zirkoff in volume VI of "HPB's Collected Writings").
> >11) I consider your testimony about the process previous to the publication of "Letters of HPB - Volume I" an
> >important piece of information. I quote:
> >* I worked closely with John Cooper assisting in his research for the
> > Blavatsky letters. Not a singe word of John Cooper's research (nor
> > mine) was included in vol. 1 of the "Letters of H.P. Blavatsky" edited
> > by John Algeo.
> > * After John Cooper died, John Algeo declared his contract with Cooper
> > concerning the letters null and void. Whatever decisions John Algeo and
> > his reformed "committee" make concerning the publication of those
> > letters, had nothing to do with any previous agreements with Cooper, nor
> > was Cooper's research included in that volume.
> > * I knew Boris--and for a time, was seeing him on a monthly bases. I
> > studied for 18 years with his editorial assistant, who, before she died,
> > was training me to assist him in his work. Therefore I was in a position
> > to follow incident by incident the problems concerning the production of
> > the Collected writings. Boris was a careful scholar, but near the end,
> > he too, did not have complete control of the publication of his works.
> >(End of quote.)
> >This, Jerry, I intend to quote in any future articles I write -- if I feel like,
> >as coming from you "in a Theos-talk posting dated 18 Abril 2006". Unless
> >you convince me it is ethically beyond my rights and I cannnot do that.
> >If you want to correct, enlarge or improve this testimony of yours, please
> >do so by all means.
> >I say it is my intention to incorporate these three paragraphs into
> >my files on HPB Letters because I tend to consider Theos-talk as public and
> >open, but you may show me it is not. I would like to hear from you.
> >I would have more things to tell you about this, but I guess it is enough for now.
> >12) You say:
> >"Do not blame those who have passed on for the mistakes of those who took
> >up the work."
> >I will not do so. Be sure about that.
> >I leave aside your emotional reaction and thank you for the background
> >information you gave me, and gave Theos-talk, on the process of "HPB Letters"
> >being finally published in 2003 with a shameful collection of "obviously spurious letters" (to
> >quote Radha Burnier in a letter to me). In fact, a collection of libels and lies adopted
> >by John Alge in spite of having been warned by (at least) Nicholas Weeks.
> >Commentaries welcome.
> >Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline, 19 April 2006.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application