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


Jul 05, 2006 07:05 AM
by carlosaveline


Here, below, an interesting posting from Gregory Tillett. 

He accepts he is not familiar with HPB's life  -- a key fact, no doubt.  

Obviously, doctor Tillett  does not know that evidences against the legitimacy of the libels attacking  HPB are overwhelming.  

That circumstance explains  why no one defends their authenticity.  Recent slanderers repeat the lies; they  publish them; they  pose as scholars;  but they never say they think the slanders are true. 

While accepting he has no knowledge of what he is writing about, Dr. Tillett sometimes seems to think that HPB might be morally comparable to C. W. Leadbeater.  Such an absurd jump in thought wouldn't be a scholarly procedure, at all.  

In 1906, exactly one hundred years ago, the "clairvoyant" and "bishop" Leadbeater had to confess his regular pedophile "masturbation lessons" to young boys (his 'disciples').  He was then rightfully expelled from the T. S. by Henry S. Olcott,  with worldwide unanimous suppport within the Adyar TS. As soon as Olcott died, the "bishop" came back,  and the scandals came back with him. 

On the other hand, H.P. Blavatsky led a pure life totally devoted to the welfare of humanity. 

I guess dr. Tillett is wise enough not to defend in a firm way John  Algeo's and Daniel Caldwell's policy of giving publicity to libels against HPB.  

Once -- and if --  doctor Tillett carefully reads Cranston's book on HPB or considers the available evidences, he will understand what the facts are. 

No one presented the imaginary originals of HPB's "letters" as published by Soloviof.  The SPR experts say the 1885 'process' against HPB  was a farse, etc.,etc. 

Getting some basic knowledge of historical facts, doctor Tillett will be able to see the ocean-wide moral difference between HPB and CWL/Annie Besant. 

Doctor Tillett wrote a most useful and well-documented biography of C. W. Leabeater, showing him for what  he was.  Every Adyar member should read it. It's called "The Elder Brother". But such a biography has nothing to do with HPB, who dr. Tillett never studied.  I suggest doctor Tillett reads Sylvia Cranston before saying Cranston's superb and most documented book on HPB is an hagiography.  He should read Jean Overton Fuller, too.  And Olcott (on Soloviof). 

He should also read HPB herself.  If he ever does that, he will be able to see how deep and how enlightening is the Esoteric Philosophy. 

Best regards,   Carlos Cardoso Aveline.


Data:Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:49:09 +1000

Assunto:Theos-World Cooper, Blavatsky, et al

> I have not had the time to respond to various postings seeking my response,
> asking me questions, or accusing me of various university work
> tends to take priority.
> 1. The Cranston "biography" - I haven't re-read it for a long time, but will
> happily do so when I have time, and offer comments. My recollection is that one
> of my major criticisms was its "sanitised" approach, simply leaving out matters
> which did not support the author's view.
> 2. John Cooper and the "dubious" letters - John's view (and mine) is that no
> scholarly editor can simply omit material on the grounds that some people
> question its veracity. Obviously, if there is evidence (that is, not simply
> opinion) that a document is not genuine, this should be noted and discussed.
> One early chapter of John's thesis considers some of the controversial letters
> in this way. Again, I have not reread his thesis for a long time and would have
> to go back to it to comment further. However, the fact that a document comes
> from a dubious source or does not conform to some expectation cannot be grounds
> in any scholarly work for omitting it. I am not, as I have written previously,
> any sort of authority on Blavatsky, so I do not comment on any particular
> letters. But, if someone claims a letter is a "forgery" or has been tampered
> with, the proper (scholarly) response is to produce the evidence - not to
> attack the editor. To say that "Letter X comes source Y which was written by
> person Z therefore it cannot be genuine" is simply irrational nonsense. Z may
> be a crook and a liar - who just happens to have a genuine letter (in the same
> way that B may be a living saint who has fallen for a fraud). I go back to an
> area I am familiar with - given that Leadbeater was a saint and could not lie
> and therefore must have been born in 1847, should I have omitted all reference
> to the 1854 birth certificate from my biography on the grounds that it cannot
> be genuine? Or since all the claims of sexual abuse must have been "lies"
> should I have left them out? Historians do not have the luxury of sectarian
> writers (like Cranston) who can adjust the data to fit the predetermined
> conclusion.
> 3. Am I a "real historian"? I don't think any answer I can give would be worth
> much. I rely on the judgments of unquestionably "real historians" who have
> examined my work.
> Dr Gregory Tillett
> 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 04/07/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4799
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra:

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

[Back to Top]

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