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

Re: Theos-World HOW I SEE IT

Aug 01, 2006 07:34 PM
by Bill Meredith


OK. Thanks.

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

In my recent exchange with Bruce, I have explained my thinking on this idea that some people do more than "equate," but actually promote the Movement above and beyond theosophy itself. If after reading that discussion through, you still need further explanation I will try again. For now I will say that until you stop classifying people based on whether or not they "believe" in HPB, you will be transmitting your general preference for defending the Movement over a desire to promote theosophical awareness.

<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. >

Carlos, as best I can tell from this story, you had painful doubts about HPB because of something you read. Then you stopped to think, went to the available sources, and sought the counsel of someone whom you trusted. Having examined it for yourself, you stopped doubting HPB. You are probably stronger for the experience, and yet, you seek to prevent others from having the same chance to grow stronger in their beliefs about HPB. I cannot explain it any simpler language, Carlos. As for me, I have directly experienced theosophy and know certain things about myself that are beyond the realm of doubt. If conclusive proof should be brought forward tomorrow that HPB was a liar and a cheat I will not be dismayed, nor will I doubt my direct theosophical experiences.

<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..." >

Carlos, I don't have time right now to research your abbreviated quote here, but I sense that Algeo offered a more substantial idea than just those few words. I am getting ready to leave for vacation, but when I return I will try to bring more of what Algeo has said here for interested readers.

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

I don't believe that you can be so sure of what anyone else "knows", nor can you guess with any degree of accuracy as to their motives. You tend to attribute ill will and bad motives to them, but could that just be a reflection of your own "characteristics" as you have believed first one thing and then left it behind for another?

Further, I think we have a difference of opinion about what it means to publish vs. publicize. To my way of thinking, Algeo published some letters which evidently might cause some people with certain "characteristics" to doubt HPB. I think that the people who published the book are free to include or exclude whatever letters they deem appropriate for their purposes. I may not agree with their choices, but I defend their right to make those choices. I would say the same thing about a book you published. Now this published book will eventually be responded to in like kind by another published book that excluded some letters, either with or without explanation. It happens all the time that publishers and editors and authors disagree and respond in kind. This gives readers more choices and different points of view and that is generally a good thing. As to the authenticity of any particular letter let me ask you Carlos, if the devil published a book on heaven, wouldn't you want to read it? Certainly I would. Now this brings me to the word "publicize." I believe that you are doing far more to publicize these letters than Algeo and Caldwell combined. Everyday, you are here on theos-talk publicizing these letters. I ask you to search the archives for the time between the book's publication of these letters and your appearance here. How many posts can you find here publicizing this publication? Only a few. A couple of them are mine as I questioned Daniel on the rationale for including these letters. Not much publicizing at all during that time frame. But count again in the time since your arrival. Too many to count. You are the chief publicizer of these letters on theos-talk. I have know Daniel for 10 years here at theos-talk. You will not get him to unpublish the letters no matter how much you publicize them.

<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. >

But is it your duty to not accept or reject them on behalf of anyone else?

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

I understand you, Carlos.

<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. >

Yes they are, but unconscious falsehoods are an even more different stuff than that.



Regards, Carlos.

[Back to Top]

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