Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00247)

RE:
>> From ">alexis dolgorukii <alexei@slip.net>:
>> Newsgroups: alt.theosophy,
>> Subject: ABOUT "READING LISTS"
>> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 11:17:48 -0700


Mr. Dolgorukii wrote:
 
>> 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?"


Daniel Caldwell replies:

I will not reply to Mr. Dolgorukii's negative comments on the Blavatsky
Foundation.
He is entitled to his opinions.  But I am puzzled by Mr. Dolgorukii's comment:  
" the so-called 'BLAVATSKY FOUNDATION' it is not
at all the impressive 'official' speaker for Theosophy that it seems..."
The Foundation's primary aim is to disseminate information on the life,
writings and teachings of Madame Blavatsky to interested individuals, inquirers
and students.  It is NOT the purpose of the Foundation to be the "
'official' speaker
for Theosophy"---whatever that may mean and imply!!!!


Mr. Dolgorukii wrote:
 
>> 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.

Daniel Caldwell replies:

Again, I will not reply to Mr. Dolgorukii's comments on my personality.  He
has his opinions and is entitled to them.  Concerning the "reading list" on HPB
and Theosophy, the FOCUS was on HPB's own writings and the  teachings contained
therein.  A number of titles were also included on HPB's life as well as
introductions and commentaries on HPB's teachings.    Furthermore, 
the bibliography was limited to books IN PRINT (as stated at the beginning
of the list
of suggested reading).  Personally, I am not aware of a book in print that
is devoted entirely to a critical (outsider's view)  analysis  of HPB's 
presentation of Theosophy. If I have overlooked such a book, please 
let me know about it.     

Again, Mr. Dolgorukii wrote:

>>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.... 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.  

It is unclear to me whether Mr. Dolgorukii is talking about "con" books that
either criticize (1) HPB's life; or  (2) criticize her teachings; or (3)
criticize the various
Theosophical organizations and groups.  Maybe all three?

Again, Mr. D. wrote: 

>> There are
>> things that people need to know about Theosophy (the organization) that they
>> cannot get from the "Party Line"

The focus of the list of suggested reading is on HPB; the focus is NOT on
the history of the
various Theosophical organizations.  This is another subject---interesting and
controversial but not the primary concern of the bibliography.  Furthermore,
an individual can read and study HPB's writings and never belong to any 
of the existing Theosophical organizations.  Or one can join all the existing
organizations! 

It will be interesting to see what books Mr. D. will include in his "con"
list.  
Hopefully some of them are still in print.  I certainly agree that it is
important
to read the other side of the argument; I do that all the time.  As far as
criticisms
of HPB's life (i.e. that she was a fraud, charlatan, etc), REFERENCES are
made to
primary sources in the biographical books in the reading list and interested
individuals can pursue that aspect IF they are interested.


Mr. Dolgorukii again wrote:
 
>> 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.


Daniel Caldwell replies:

COMPARE what Mr. D. says about my book THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME
BLAVATSKY with the following facts:
  
In the Introduction (p. 7) to my book, I wrote as follows:

"Few individuals have been more misrepresented and slandered than
Madame Blavatsky.  Therefore, in selecting narratives for this book, only
a few of the negative accounts have been used.  There are several 
reasons for this decision.  First and foremost, many of these hostile
accounts are simply untrue.  Those who would like to read some of 
the negative accounts should consult the following items in the
bibliography:  Marion Meade's biography (listed on p. 313) and the 
titles by Coulomb, Hodgson and Solovyov (listed under the heading
'Major Attacks Against H.P.B. and Their Rebuttals,'pp. 315-316)."

And I do give the negative comments of Richard Hodgson on p. 205 that
she was a Russian spy and that her raps were nothing more than 
the cracking of her finger and thumb joints.

In fact, for example, I was hoping that some readers would COMPARE  
what was found in my book with what Marion Meade wrote about HPB.


Again, Mr. D. wrote: 

>> 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.


In my book (p. 313) at the very beginning of the bibliography, I wrote:

"This bibliography is a unique listing of Blavatsky-related books, audio
cassettes and videos (VHS) *in-print* as of October, 1991....Many of these
items can be purchased through your local bookstore.  If you cannot
obtain a particular title, try to order it by mail from....."

Notice the words:  IN PRINT.  Every item listed in the bibliography (with
two exceptions) was in print as of Oct. 1991.  The two out-of-print items
*included because of their importance* were Marion Meade's biography and
Emma Coulomb's book.  Both of these titles portray HPB as a fraud and 
charlatan.

Again, in the same bibliography, I list Richard Hodgson's expose of HPB
and Solovyoff's negative portrayal of HPB under the heading "Major
Attacks Against HPB and Their Rebuttals."  The reader interested in
pursuing that aspect of HPB's career, therefore, could pursue those
titles (by Meade, Coulomb, Hodgson and Solovyoff), etc.

Again, repeating what Mr. D. wrote: 

>> 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.

Are those "dozens of others attacks" to be considered MAJOR attacks?
Certainly, in my mind, Meade, Coulomb, Hodgson and Solovyoff produced
major attacks on HPB.  Maybe there are others, but these four titles are 
some of the most important.

Were those "dozens of other attacks" IN PRINT in 1991?

The major reason for including only IN PRINT items was that it was assumed
that these titles would be most accessible to readers of my book.  Furthermore,
since these titles were in print, a reader could easily purchase copies.

Again, the  bibliography in my book lists (1) Bruce Campbell's ANCIENT WISDOM
REVIVED, which gives a negative portrayal of HPB and (2) K. Paul Johnson's 
IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, which gives a controversial interpretation
of HPB's career.

Enough.

I will let other readers of this posting, therefore, decide if I am guilt of
trying
to hide negative info on HPB.

It will be interesting to see Mr. D.'s list of "con" books.  Mr. D., please
post 
the titles of the "literally dozens of other attacks on Blavatsky" on alt.
theosophy and I will repost them on theos-l and theos-roots.
I would also encourage Mr. D. to give us several CONCRETE examples
of the "very rational, well-argued points" from these attacks on HPB.

Daniel H. Caldwell