Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

57479Re: theos-talk Re: Reply to Govert and questi ons about Emma Britten and Aïvanhov

Expand Messages
  • Cass Silva
    Feb 5, 2012
      What does a person's biography have to do with what they are teaching?  Mommy dearest is quite different when mommy's side is available.


      > From: Govert Schuller <schuller@...>
      >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >Sent: Monday, 6 February 2012 7:34 AM
      >Subject: RE: theos-talk Re: Reply to Govert and questions about Emma Britten and Aïvanhov

      >That’s fine with me, as long as you know it’s an opinion. Meanwhile all
      >books have factual errors, HPB’s included, so that shouldn’t be a criterion
      >not to read Meade.
      >From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On
      >Behalf Of paulobaptista_v
      >Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 1:51 PM
      >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: theos-talk Re: Reply to Govert and questions about Emma Britten and
      >Dear Govert,
      >As I said before, I am satisfied with my present opinion about HPB.
      >Currently, I am more concerned with grasping theosophical concepts, not so
      >much with the evaluation of personalities.
      >Besides, it is hard to spend money in a book with factual errors. I stumbled
      >across the following excerpt just now, while trying to find a bit more about
      >Meade's book.
      >"In all, about nine or ten persons testified to having seen the Mahatmas:
      >Annie Besant, Henry Olcott, Damodar Mavalankar, Isabel Cooper-Oakley,
      >William Brown, Nadyezhda Fadeyev, S.R. Ramaswamier, Justine Glinka and
      >Vsevolod Solovyov. Franz Hartmann said that while he never actually saw
      >them, he felt their presence." Marion Meade in her biography Madame
      >Blavatsky, The Woman Behind The Myth, 1980, p. 497.
      >I remember reading this statement by Meade some fifteen years ago and
      >exclaiming to myself, "Oh Marion Meade, you haven't done your homework!" Off
      >the top of my head, I could count at least twenty-five people who testified
      >to having seen the Mahatmas during H.P.B.'s lifetime. And despite Meade's
      >statement to the contrary, Hartmann had testified that he had actually seen
      >one of the Mahatmas. Apparently Meade had never carefully read two of the
      >titles listed in her own bibliography: Geoffrey Barborka's The Mahatmas And
      >Their Letters (1973) and Franz Hartmann's Report Of Observations, etc.
      >(1884); both titles prove Meade didn't know what she was writing about
      >concerning Hartmann."
      >D. Caldwell
      >--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ,
      >"Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
      >> Dear Paulo,
      >> I think you might be too negatively influenced by Carrither's rhetoric. He
      >> makes good points, but also less good points, and gives the impression
      >> the books in question are worthless and that therefore HPB stands
      >> vindicated. I do not agree. Meade and Williams also make good points, and
      >> lesser points, and are indeed quite straightforward in their disbelief of
      >> HPB. Meade does not proceed from an axiomatically held materialist
      >> She acknowledges that there were psychic phenomena connected with HPB but
      >> also thinks there was enough trickery by HPB to conclude that she was a
      >> fraud. I think every Theosophist should read the Meade book (and then the
      >> Carrithers review) to make up their own mind.
      >> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      >[mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
      >> Behalf Of paulobaptista_v
      >> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:06 PM
      >> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      >> Subject: theos-talk Re: Reply to Govert and questions about Emma Britten
      >> Aïvanhov
      >> Dear Govert,
      >> I understand your approach and I would have liked that Meade, Peter
      >> Washington and others, who have portrayed a negative image of HPB, had
      >> 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
      >> 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"
      >> "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
      >> biographies is very high (dates, places, etc…) and this only happens
      >> 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:
      >> http://blavatskyfoundation.org/abstractionfromtbf.htm
      >> http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/theos/baboon.htm
      >> 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
      >> 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
      >> who were against her. All possibilities must be considered, but lies must
      >> 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?
      >> 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
      >> 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?
      >> PB
      >> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      ><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ,
      >> "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
      >> > skeptics do not amount automatically to a vindication of HPB. Though
      >> > 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
      >> > 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: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      >> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      ><mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
      >> On
      >> > Behalf Of paulobaptista_v
      >> > Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:35 PM
      >> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.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
      >> > 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
      >> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vThc0c1WIug
      >> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vThc0c1WIug
      >> &feature=related>
      >> > &feature=related
      >> > (check also parts 1, 3 and 4)
      >> >
      >> > confirm the warnings made by Carrithers
      >> > http://blavatskyfoundation.org/abstractionfromtbf.htm
      >> >
      >> > I see no use in reading a book based on older books that are known to
      >> depict
      >> > lies.
      >> >
      >> > 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
      >> > Lady.
      >> >
      >> > I don´t have a good impression about Elizabeth Claire Prophet, although
      >> > admit I do not have enough information on her. I know that in
      >> > there are some articles about Prophet, and I intend to read them. She
      >> > the Ig Nobel prize in 2011 for predicting the end of world in the year
      >> > 1990 and some of her sons have strongly criticized her. Check what one
      >> > them had to say in 2006:
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > m_2006.html
      >> >
      >> > In a previous post someone mentioned Emma Hardinge Britten. As far as I
      >> > 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,
      >> > much of the information contained in the book]— and saying this, I say
      >> > 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
      >> > written by Carrithers:
      >> >
      >> > http://blavatskyfoundation.org/torch.pdf
      >> >
      >> > http://blavatskyfoundation.org/hasdamodarreturned.pdf
      >> >
      >> > and also this one published in the Winter of 2008 in Fohat
      >> >
      >> > http://www.theosophyonline.com/ler.php?id=298
      >> >
      >> > 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
      >> > 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
      >> > 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
      >> > 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
      >> in
      >> > the 60's I guess that those concepts were not that popular in 1975 as
      >> > 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
      >> > we can hypothesize that the course of events led to a change of
      >> > 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
      >> > 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.
      >> >
      >> > PB
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > No virus found in this message.
      >> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      >> > Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4757 - Release Date:
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >> >
      >> No virus found in this message.
      >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      >> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4781 - Release Date: 02/02/12
      >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >No virus found in this message.
      >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      >Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4790 - Release Date: 02/05/12
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic