Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00235)

I am posting to theos-l and theos-roots some interesting comments
by Alexis Dolgorukii concerning The Blavatsky Foundation, the List of Suggested
Reading on HPB and Theosophy, and myself.  Food for thought.  I will post my
own response later.

Daniel H. Caldwell

> From ">alexis dolgorukii <alexei@slip.net>:
> Newsgroups: alt.theosophy,
> 
> Subject: ABOUT "READING LISTS"
> 

> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 11:17:48 -0700
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I am going to assume that many, if not most of the people who peruse this
> newsgroup are NOT members of any organized Theosophical Group. I certainly
> hope that is the case. Otherwise, there aren't enough "official"
> Theosophists to make all this worth the effort. Because of that assumption I
> want to say something about the so-called "BLAVATSKY FOUNDATION" it is not
> at all the impressive "official" speaker for Theosophy that it seems, though
> it does present what is called "Core Theosophy". It was founded by a man
> named Walter Carrithers as part of a "Back To Blavatsky Movement", and upon
> his death was taken over by Daniel Caldwell, who is responsible for the
> messages on this newsgroup. In point of fact, I would be quite surprised to
> learn that the "Foundation" consists of more members than Mr.Caldwell
> himself. Because of that, I have a question for Mr. Caldwell, in his remarks
> about my own suggested reading, he uses the term "we" quite frequently. So I
> have to ask him (with all due respect to Mark Twain) if he "has a frog in
> his pocket?"
> 
> Mr Caldwell is one of the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest people
> I have ever met (electronically of course). He argues that my description of
> his "reading list" as 100% pro-theosophic propaganda is untrue Because 50%
> of it is Mme. Blavatskaya's own works. But, that's dreadfully disingenuous,
> for what are her works except theosophical propaganda? Propaganda, is any
> material that is promotional of an idea. Obviously Blavatskaya's works are
> promotional of her beliefs and so they word "propaganda" fit's them
> perfectly well. The problem with Mr. Caldwell's list, is that it provides no
> opportunity whatsoever for any "second opinions" and that is intellectually
> dishonest. I believe one cannot make a rational selection of any philosophy
> unless one has considered all points of view concerning it.
> 
> I consider myself a theosophist, a "process theosophist" to be sure, but
> nonetheless a theosophist. I have read all the opinions pro and con and
> decided that theosophy had something in it that was valid to me. This is not
> how Mr. Caldwell and other "Core Theosophists" view the subject. There are
> things that people need to know about Theosophy (the organization) that they
> cannot get from the "Party Line". I will, shortly, be posting a complete
> list of "con" books I consider sane and well worth reading, complete with
> their availability. Mr. Caldwell won't care much for this, but I really
> couldn't care less for Mr. Caldwell's feelings in this matter.
> 
> He edited and self-published a book: "THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY"
> which is pure and unabashed hagiography. It consists of quoted reminiscences
> of people who knew her. The only reference to any contrary opinion is in the
> bibliography in the back of the book which has a section entitled "MAJOR
> ATTACKS ON MADAME BLAVATSKY", but which entirely ignores most, if not
> everything written on the subject in favor of two references to the "Society
> of Psychic Research" negative report on HPB, one to the report itself, and
> the other to the "Coulombs" who were a disgruntled pair of employees who
> were instrumental in the results of that report. He also refers to an allied
> matter, the book by Vsevolod S. Solovioff (Soloviev) "A MODERN PRIESTESS OF
> ISIS", He was a relation of Blavatskaya's who wrote an extremely critical
> book about her and published it in their native Russia. It was (obviously
> for their own purposes) translated, abridged, and published for the Society
> for Psychic Research. But there are literally dozens of other attacks on
> Blavatsky he could have included but chose not to, Because some of them
> raise very rational, well-argued points. These Mr. Caldwell would rather
> people didn't read. Well I think they should! But then I'm not pushing a
> "religion" and even though he refuses to admit it, that's exactly what "The
> Blavatsky Foundation" is doing.
> 
>