Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00171)

Dear Nicholas,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I hope to respond in the spirit
in which it was intended.  You wrote:

> Surely therefore, one can react forcefully against your notions
> about the identity & motivations of the Adepts after (or even
> during) examining them -- and finding them (the notions, that is)
> wanting?

Who am I to deny others that right? But forceful reactions are by
nature emotional and physical, and therefore *personal.* That, by
its nature, tends to direct the reactions toward a person rather
than an idea.  The extent to which an attack on a book is
recognizably personal in tone is a clue to outside observers
about the level of consciousness from which the criticisms
emanate.  Such has been the comment of several such persons who
have wandered onto the scene.

> There are other possibilities besides 1) hostile, unthinking
> attack or 2) reasoned, mild, criticism -- are there not?

I'd say they're on a continuum of negative reactions, just as 1)
giddy, enthusiastic endorsement and 2) reasoned, mild approbation
are on the opposite side.  Since the hostile attacks are in
writing and about a book, they can't be *entirely* unthinking in
nature.  But in the cases I've complained of, the emotional
energy appears to have the upper hand over the intellectual
content.  Just slightly, sometimes, but quite emphatically in
others.

> Saying some reactions were due only or primarily to a
> predisposition to defend an idea (the Holy Masters) dear to one's
> psyche, is true -- for some people at some times.  But you are
> deluding yourself (perhaps due to our human, common
> predisposition to defend our ego) if you think my or many others'
> reactions to your writings are predisposed to animus.  Mine were
> and are not.

Could you elaborate or explain, then? Whence the emotional
intensity and personal attacks, if not from preexisting
assumptions and attachments? Since each of what I have
(self-deludingly?) perceived as hostile, personal, highly
emotionally charged reactions has come from readers with fairly
similar beliefs, I'm hard pressed to come up with any other
explanation than ideological resistance based on belief system.
We're talking between 5 and 10 people here, all heavily invested
in Theosophy and leaning toward an emphasis on Blavatsky more
than later figures-- "theologically conservative" if one may use
an analogy from Christian internecine conflict.  The only other
common thread is that except for Algeo, and Daniel in nearby
Arizona, every attack has come from California.  But geographical
causality seems pretty far-fetched compared to ideological.