Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00272)

Daniel:

Very interesting post.
I hope everybody who is really serious reads everything that is published
and make up their own mind. Since there is no "official" definition of
Theosophy, no one's personal opinion is any better than any one else's. That
being the case, I hope any serious student keeps in focus the ideas and keep
the author in the background. It is the application of these ideas in our
personal life that is going to gives us a better understanding of the deeper
meanings and thus confirm or deny the real nature of these ideas. Ideas rule
the world.

Would be looking forward to your response.

BTW I have not seen the post on usenet in Texas yet.

MK Ramadoss
-------------------------


At 10:40 PM 7/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>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.
>> 
>>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss