57456Re: theos-talk Re: Reply to Govert and q uestions about Emma Britten and Aïvanhov
- Feb 2, 2012Paulo,
Thanks for those nice links that deconstruct the "tamas" writers who failed to impede H.P.Blavatsky's impact and reception to so many who read her and were inspired by her knowledge, profound dissertations, and va lued contributions. The second link was very nice work. IONS was originally founded by the U.S. Astronaut Edgar Mitchell who had his own apo theosis in space which motivated him to later create the Institute of Noetic Science.
I am not qualified to treat on the subjects you asked about, my apoligies. But I await with interest the replies fromthose who know more than I do about "Art Maghic" etc.
Hope you continue to post here,
----- Original Message -----
From: "paulobaptista_v" <paulobaptista_v@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 1:06:11 PM
Subject: theos-talk Re: Reply to Govert and questions about Emma Britten and Aïvanhov
I understand your approach and I would have liked that Meade, Peter Washington and others, who have portrayed a negative image of HPB, had done just that, a comparison of the favorable and the unfavorable views, but without preconceptions. I have never read Meade, Williams or Washington's biographies of Blavatsky, but I am familiar with the replies written by some theosophists. It still surprises me how difficult it seems to be (even for some who are scholars) to analyze a certain subject without some preconceptions like "Psychic phenomena does not exist so HPB was a fraud" or "The existence of Mahatmas with strange powers is something that cannot be real, so they are a product of her imagination". That's not a very scientific approach and even for a journalist those assumptions are incorrect starting points. The number of inaccuracies in the unfavorable HPB biographies is very high (dates, places, etc…) and this only happens because some of those authors were not primarily concerned in producing a rigorous work. They prefer to simply give their personal views, based on interpretations (sometimes distorted) of pre-selected events that can suggest that their preconceived ideas are correct.
In the links below you can see examples of the kind of mistakes that these authors have in their books:
I am not interested in wasting my time reading books that follow this line of thought, that's why I made that remark about Meade's book.
I read some biographic accounts concerning HPB (Cranston, Overton Fuller, Olcott, Cleather, Goodrick-Clarke, Neff, Wachtmeister, Kingsland) and I'm satisfied with my current perspective of who she was. HPB was not perfect of course, but people seem to prefer focusing on her faults instead of trying to understand some of her actions and the conditions she had to face to achieve her goal. Most important of all, they forget about the message and teachings that she brought to the world.
I think that a definitive biography has not been made yet, and if someone wants to take that enterprise, of course he/she has to take in account those who were against her. All possibilities must be considered, but lies must be discarded.
I think that I got no answer to my questions about Emma Britten, so I will try again.
Blavatsky and Emma became enemies right after the release of Art Magic? When did Emma leave the TS?
I would also like to get some opinions from the members of theos-talk concerning Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov. He is rather popular here in Portugal in some circles (for example amongst some of the teachers of Lisbon's biggest astrology school) and it seems that the same happens in France. Don´t know if the same applies to the English-speaking world. Is he in some way connected to theosophy? His master, Peter Deunov used a lexicon that seems to have something in common with theosophy. Deunov also had some sort of connection with K, after the end of Order of the Star of the East. What is your opinion about Aïvanhov?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org , "Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
> Dear Paulo,
> You bring up a lot of interesting issues. Though I can't deal with them all,
> I only like to suggest that two negatives don't make a positive in this
> investigation of HPB. The criticisms by HPB apologists of the works by HPB
> skeptics do not amount automatically to a vindication of HPB. Though their
> methodologies might be faulty, they still might be right. Besides that, even
> Daniel admits that one can learn a lot, though with caution, from the HPB
> biographies by Meade and Williams. As a Theosophist one might not find them
> palatable, they're still important to read, even if only to get familiar
> with what's out there fundamentally critiquing HPB.
> From: email@example.com [mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org ] On
> Behalf Of paulobaptista_v
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:35 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: theos-talk About Emma Britten and the torch-bearer of truth
> Thank you Govert for all you wrote about K.
> I do not agree with your perspective on Blavatsky. My ideas about her are
> closer to Daniel's.
> I was appalled to see Marion Meade's biography about Blavatsky mentioned as
> a good book, when her statements on this video
> < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vThc0c1WIug&feature=related >
> (check also parts 1, 3 and 4)
> confirm the warnings made by Carrithers
> I see no use in reading a book based on older books that are known to depict
> For me, the most interesting biography about Blavatsky is "Blavatsky and her
> teachers", by Jean Overton Fuller. Although not a biography in a strict way,
> Daniel's "The Esoteric World of Mme Blavatsky" is also extremely helpful if
> you want to know the arguments of those who were for and against the Old
> I don´t have a good impression about Elizabeth Claire Prophet, although I
> admit I do not have enough information on her. I know that in alpheus.org
> there are some articles about Prophet, and I intend to read them. She won
> the Ig Nobel prize in 2011 for predicting the end of world in the year of
> 1990 and some of her sons have strongly criticized her. Check what one of
> them had to say in 2006:
> In a previous post someone mentioned Emma Hardinge Britten. As far as I am
> aware, Emma Britten was one of the first members of the TS. In 1876 she
> published "Art Magic", a book which was recently re-edited by Marc Demarest.
> Yesterday I was searching for that passage about the "torch-bearer of truth"
> in the Portuguese version of the "Key to Theosophy" and in the previous page
> I found strong criticism by Blavatsky about "Art Magic".
> She wrote: "The cycle of "Adepts," used as sledge-hammers to break the
> theosophical heads with, began twelve years ago, with Mrs. Emma Hardinge
> Britten's "Louis" of Art Magic and Ghost-Land, and now ends with the "Adept"
> and "Author" of The Light of Egypt, a work written by Spiritualists against
> Theosophy and its teachings."
> "The spiritualistic author of Art Magic, etc., may or may not have been
> acquainted with such an Adept [Louis, who according to Emma Britten, gave
> much of the information contained in the book]— and saying this, I say far
> less than what that lady has said and written about us and Theosophy for the
> last several years — that is her own business."
> Blavatsky and Emma became enemies right after the release of Art Magic? When
> did Emma leave the TS?
> About the 20th century "torch bearer of truth", I found these two articles
> written by Carrithers:
> and also this one published in the Winter of 2008 in Fohat
> which are of some interest, concerning this subject.
> When we look to the last quarter of the 20th century we see a popularization
> of the concepts of karma and reincarnation, mainly through the hands of men
> of science. We have Raymond Moody Jr's "Life after Life" released in 1975
> about NDEs. In 1977, the first academic article by prof. Ian Stevenson about
> reincarnation was accepted by a medical journal (his work gave strong
> support to the advocates of reincarnation). We could even add Brian Weiss'
> books about past lives, the first being published in 1988. Buddhist
> teachings spread widely in the West during the 1975-2000 period.
> In astrology, we had the resurge of ancient techniques, with the translation
> of valuable old books by astrologers like Robert Hand, Robert Zoller and
> Robert Schmidt, all of them with an extensive knowledge of Greek or/and
> Latin. This had a tremendous impact in the Art.
> It is quite clear for me that the common man of our Western societies has
> heard a lot about karma and reincarnation in the last 35 years. Movies (and
> even soap operas) used them as plot devices. Despite of all that happened in
> the 60's I guess that those concepts were not that popular in 1975 as they
> are now.
> There was not an intervention of a "torch- bearer of truth", nor did the TS
> had an important role in the 1975-2000 period. Taking HPB words literally,
> we can hypothesize that the course of events led to a change of strategy,
> and the option was to popularize two core concepts, benefiting from the
> visibility and credibility that men of science have. Of course we could
> discuss some of their methods, especially in the case of Brian Weiss.
> I am sure that all that happened in the TS after Blavatsky's death surely
> impeded the TS of being the body that could continue the work of its
> Founders. I certainly agree with Carrithers and Redfern on this.
> Blavatsky's words were:
> "Towards the close of each century you will invariably find that an
> outpouring or upheaval of spirituality — or call it mysticism if you prefer
> — has taken place. "
> And the question that has to be asked is if this happened in the last
> quarter of the 20th century or not. In my opinion, yes, it has.
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4757 - Release Date: 01/21/12
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>