No "Double Standard" At All
Apr 24, 2006 07:48 AM
Daniel writes, see below:
"But the question remains: WHO gave permission or authorization to ULT or DES or to particular DES officials over many decades to circulate to new people HPB's esoteric writings??? And consider this: Mr. Crosbie died in 1919. So in the last 87 years on whose authority was the esoteric instructions of HPB given to new people?"
The publication by A. Besant of the Esoteric Teachings of HPB as part of a book commercially sold -- "The Secret Doctrine" was obviously a publica matter, since the book was public.
The possible private circulation of the same texts in any inner school, be it Pasadena TS- related, ULT- related or Adyar TS-related, is naturally a private subject, since it is not public and not commercial.
So Daniel is mistaking the public and the private.
Since time immemorial there has been secret, or semi-secret, that is, ESOTERIC teachings.
Being esoteric, these teachings are not discussed publically.
Daniel is trying to deny esoteric tradition and philosophy the right to keep its teachings to students who have a commitement to it, and a commitment to try to live these teachings in their lives.
I would like you friends to consider that, precisely because inner shools are inner - and they have a right to that - they will not come to the internet to aswer, in detail, to anskers and inuendos made by Daniel Caldwell (or by any of the alias he uses to use).
Rosicrucians, masons, etc., have also been abused for centuries.
Now, as to the specific question made by Daniel, on "WHO GAVE AUTHORIZATION", etc, a general, but entirely true answer is the obne I have already given:
There is no authority in Occultis outside one's Heart and Conscience.
No authentic school of Theosophy, be it "esoteric" or "exoteric", will ever have an authority higher than one's Heart. The Masters, in their Letters, repeatedly state that they respect the autonomy of each learner.
In the collection of the magazine "Theosophy", which is edited by ULT members, one can see several articles against the idea of lineal apostolic "succession of authority", which lead to the formation of "religious" bureaucracies.
Yet the idea of the inner authority of one's own heart being supreme is fortunately very much alive in the Adyar TS, and, I am sure, also very much alive in the Pasadena TS.
Outer authority and status symbol can be found in the CWL's misdoings (first half of 20th century) and in the Vatican.
Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline.
Data:Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:44:03 -0000
Assunto:Theos-World Dr. Stokes on the "Double Standard" ??
> Carlos writes:
> ULT accuses A. Besant of PUBLLISHING to the wide public the esoteric
> teachings. This fact is undeniable.
> Yes this fact is undeniable.
> And then Carlos writes:
> Now, Daniel & David accuse the ULT of circulating PRIVATELY the
> esoteric teachings of HPB.
> This is not just an accusation but as Carlos might write:
> "This fact is undeniable."
> That is, the ULT or let us be more precise the DES has circulated
> PRIVATELY to NEW students over many decades the esoteric teachings
> of HPB in a new edition that in fact contains many changes, etc.
> from HPB's originals.
> But the question remains:
> WHO gave permission or authorization to ULT or DES or to particular
> DES officials over many decades to circulate to new people HPB's
> esoteric writings???
> And consider this:
> Mr. Crosbie died in 1919. So in the last 87 years on whose
> authority was the esoteric instructions of HPB given to new people?
> During the lifetimes of Blavatsky and Judge, they gave out these
> esoteric instructions, etc. based on their claim that the Masters
> authorized them to conduct the esoteric school, allow new students
> to be admitted to the school, and permitted them to give these
> instructions. But after Mr. Judge's death and after Mr. Crosbie's
> death, who were the persons who believed they had authorization to
> circulate these esoteric writings to NEW people??
> And authorization from???????????
> Carlos please note what Dr. H.N. Stokes, who was a severe critic of
> the teachings and policies of Besant and Leadbeater, wrote on this
> very issue in his O.E. Library Critic Magazine:
> "....why did the magazine 'Theosophy' in its series of articles
> later published as 'The Theosophical Movement' [that is, published
> 1925 as a book] quote from documents [written by H.P.B. and] marked
> private and issued to E.S.T. members under pledge of secrecy?
> Are we to suppose that . . . the editors of 'Theosophy' Magazine,
> are above all rules applying to lesser mortals?
> "No, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
> "If .... [HPB's esoteric documents] are [still] private documents
> today, no one without a diploma of sanctity and a special permit
> from the Mahatmas is more entitled to [quote from them or] read them
> than any others, or to discourage others from doing what he does
> himself when it suits his purpose...."
> Notice here in this instance the editors of Theosophy magazine
> circulated quotations from HPB's esoteric documents to the "wide
> public," not just in "private"! And on whose authority did the
> editors of this public magazine decide to quote private and
> confidential esoteric writings of HPB?
> See also another example of this quoting to the WIDE PUBLIC (as
> Carlos phrases it):
> And what Mrs. Besant or Mr. Crosbie did or did not do later, and
> whatever the consequences of their actions or whatever negative or
> positive contributions were made by Adyar TS or ULT, this does not
> necessarily justify circulating the esoteric instructions or help us
> to decide why this was done by either Mr. Crosbie or Mrs. Besant.
> And as to the rest of your posting, far as I can tell, you are
> confusing issues that may not necessarily be related the way you
> might want to relate them.
> But each reader can decide what is what.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "carlosaveline"
> > Dear Friends,
> > This (below) is an interesting question posed by Mr. David Green
> under the name of Daniel Caldwell -- or perhaps by Daniel Caldwell
> himself under his own name -- who knows?
> > My answer is that -- trees should be judged by their fruits.
> Let's see, then.
> > ONE.
> > ULT accuses A. Besant of PUBLLISHING to the wide public the
> esoteric teachings. This fact is undeniable.
> > What are are the fruits of Besant's action? All those crazy
> fancies and immoralities commited by C. W. Leadbeater, which
> provoked his expulsion from the very Adyar TS by H. Olcott; Annie
> Besant and Leadbeater's several fake initiations, the second coming
> of a Fake Christ, etc., and so on.
> > TWO.
> > Now, Daniel & David accuse the ULT of circulating PRIVATELY the
> esoteric teachings of HPB.
> > And -- what are the fruits of ULT's action in general, since its
> creation in 1909? No crazy fancies; important preservation of the
> authentic teachings; common sense without too much noise; a growing
> worldwide network of students.
> > By the fruits we can see where the occult link was kept unbroken,
> and where wild fancies destroyed common sense and inner commitments.
> > Wild fancies that ultimately produce actions like those of Daniel
> Caldwell/ David Green, and/or those actions of John Algeo as
> described right here a couple of days ago by our Theos-talk member
> Dr. Gregory Tillett.
> > The ULT, as the ETS, as, in great part, the Pasadena TS and in
> some degree even members of the Adyar TS (like Geoffrey Farthing or
> Ianthe Hoskins) and many independent students -- have kept an
> innerly unbroken link. Whether they belong to an Esoteric School
> is another issue.
> > And I should mention here a most important and successful
> effort, the Wizards Bookshelf, made by the great independent
> theosophist and editor Richard Robb. See especially his "Secret
> Doctrine Reference List".
> > Take a look at www.wizardsbookshelf.com
> > Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline
> > De:email@example.com
> > Para:firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Cópia:
> > Data:Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:24:03 -0000
> > Assunto:Theos-World Do we see a double standard here at work?
> > > Mr. John Garrigues et al (editors of Theosophy Magazine and
> > > associates of the ULT) in The Theosophical Movement 1875-1925,
> > > 571-572 wrote the following about Mrs. Annie Besant:
> > >
> > > "In Mrs. Besant's 'Third Volume' [of The Secret Doctrine, 1897]
> > > incorporated the private papers originally issued by H.P.B. to
> > > E.S., and in reprinting these Mrs. Besant . . . broke the
> > > clause of her solemn pledge as a member of the Esoteric
> > >
> > > Using the same "reasoning" as Carlos, should we characterize
> > > the above statement as an "attack" against Mrs. Besant, as an
> > > attack against the Adyar T.S.?
> > >
> > > Does Carlos condone what the Theosophy Company writers have done
> > > the above statement?
> > >
> > > Is it ok to question (or [to use Carlos' word] "attack") Annie
> > > Besant but it is not okay to simply ask SIMILAR relevant
> > > about Mr. Crosbie?
> > >
> > > Do we see a double standard here at work?
> > >
> > > Daniel
> > > http://blavatskyarchives.com
> > > http://theosophy.info
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 21/04/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4746
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application