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


Aug 01, 2006 03:11 PM
by carlosaveline


OK. Thanks.

Yet -- what makes you think I ever "equated the Movement with the perennial wisdom itself?" 

Explain that. The difference between the Movement and the Teaching is obviously great enough, and the perennial wisdom is quite a different matter!
Even the Teaching is very much limited if compared to the Wisdom Eternal, just as the Movement is and must be very much limited if compared to the Teaching. 

(As to the Teaching, it naturally dates back to Ancient India, Greece, Egypt, etc., and itself goes beyond words, being transmitted also by Example and Silence.) 

You say: "Still, so long as you remain clear that it is the Movement that you are protecting..." 

That needs qualification. I put FACTS above the "movement". I will give you an illustration of that, Bill. 

When I first read Letter Seven and other idiocies in Algeo's volume, in the first semester of 2004, I painfully doubted HPB. At first, I just could not think USA TPH could publish a fake and slanderous action. 

Then I stopped to think, went through the "sources" of that fake text, saw it came from Soloviof, understood it all, and called from my rural home and library in Brasilia to a friend, a long standing editor in the English language (not a ULT member): 

-- "Tell me, am I dreaming, or Soloviof cannot be taken as a source of any historical information on HPB? Take a look at Sylvia Cranston! What happened to Algeo and the TPH?"

And the person said: 

-- "You are right. Soloviof can be no source". 

Then I stopped doubting HPB. And still I checked that with Algeo himself, with Radha Burnier, Dara Eklund, Joy Mills and many others, before getting tougher. 

So, I clearly put TRUTH and FACTS well above any current opinion of mine. 

It is because of this characteristics of mine that, having once believed that CWL was a true disciple, I accepted the truth about his Pseudo-Theosophy and moved on. 

It is because of this characteristics of mine that, having once believed that J. Krishnamurti was an Initiate and a Brahmacharya (!) , I accepted the facts of his great human limitations as confessed by Radha Burnier and other close students and friends of his, and moved on. (Ms. Radha honestly admitted his limitations and personal emotional complications in a face to face talk with me in 22 August 1995, during a Theosophical retreat in Brazil. ) 

What about H. P. Blavatsky? 

Easy. You see, Bill -- Daniel Caldwell doesn't even have the courage to say that he believes in the Coulombs, or in Soloviof; and John Algeo follows the very same track. Algeo recently wrote in "The Theosophist" -- "those letters may well be fake..." 

"What a nerve!" I would say. They publicize what they know to be but slanders. 

I hope that clarifies.

To me, Truth and Facts are above the Movement, and above my vision of it; but slanders, lies and falsehoods are not "scientific", and therefore it is not my duty to accept them. 

If one reads the above lines in an impersonal and non-reactive mood, perhaps one can see what I mean. 

I am a seeker. That which I want to learn yet -- is far more important than that which I think I may have learned already; but conscious falsehoods, well, they are quite a different stuff. 

Regards, Carlos. 

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


[Back to Top]

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