Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00003)

BRENDA TUCKER WRITES:

>Also, like between Daniel and Bruce and the Steiner or HPB issue, Daniel
>doesn't understand why Bruce sees the way he does or chooses what he wishes
>to say, but really 1st, 2nd, 3rd, foundings and participants, are all just
>mish-mash, because we are FREE and people should COMMAND freedom. Bruce
>shouldn't feel at all constrained to match someone else's rigid lines of
>thinking, analytical, trained, whatever, just because they have learned
>only some methods to be right. Perhaps Daniel has university training and
>thinks we all should be bound by this. We're FREE to choose the second in
>line if those thoughts appeal to us more. All credit doesn't have to be
>heaped upon whoever is first, does it?

DANIEL CALDWELL REPLIES:

I believe Brenda here may be confusing (1)  the right of someone to have
whatever opinion he/she chooses with (2) whether  a particular statement
is correct, factual or wrong.

I have not been disputing whether Bruce or anyone else has the right and
freedom to believe/disbelieve as they see fit.  I have been dealing with
*the statements* made by Bruce.  I really don't care who wrote the statements.
I was focusing on the statement and asking is it true or not.

To elucidate a little more.  There are people in the world who still believe
that the world is flat. I even once met a gentleman who believed such.  As
far as I am concerned, he has the freedom, right, etc. to believe such if he
so desires.  But the separate issue is whether the "statement" ( that the
earth is flat) is true or not.

Brenda also writes:

" Daniel doesn't understand why Bruce sees the way he does or chooses what
he wishes to say. . . ."

No, I don't understand why Bruce "sees" the way he does.  And for me, this
is part of why we have such a email group like Theos-Talk.  Here we have
the opportunity to not only state our own opinions but also to try to understand
other points of view.  Hey, isn't that what discussion and dialogue is
partly about?

Maybe each of us can learn something new, can educate ourselves a little more?
I am trying sincerely to understand Bruce's view on HPB and the Mahatmas.
Maybe I'm  wrong and he is right.  I am open to that but I need some feedback
in order to process it and possibly arrive at a new position, a new insight.
If people tell me I'm wrong on some matter, that's fine.  But I also ask
that they tell me how they know that, what is their reasoning on the matter,
etc.  Maybe I will learn something but I am not a mind reader.  I can't get
inside
their heads.

This is why I have written critiques of K. Paul Johnson's views on the
Mahatmas KH and M.  I wanted to let other interested readers have access to
evidence  and points of view that Johnson does not allow his readers access to
in his books.  Johnson has the perfect right to believe whatever and publish
whatever. That is not the issue. Johnson's books have ruffled the feathers of
many Theosophists and that, in my opinion, is good if it gets them to think
through the issues involved.  But apparently Johnson doesn't like HIS feathers
ruffled hence his attitude toward my criticisms.  But I hope that perhaps he
has had to think just a little, question his own assumptions a wee bit, etc. as
a result of my critique.  I have been told by readers of my critiques that they
benefited and that is good enough for me.

Over the years I have found far too many Theosophists who apparently don't
like to think through issues.  Oh, it's too manasic, too much concrete mind!
I get the impression that they don't like their "beliefs" questioned!  30 years
ago I thought that Theosophists were a more advanced group of people, now
alas I realize that they are like the rest of us.......human.

Again, Brenda comments:

> Perhaps Daniel has university training and
>thinks we all should be bound by this.

Nope, not true, Brenda as far as being bound by "university training".
Each person has to do their own thinking.  I have enough problems
doing my own thinking.  As they say in Texas, each tub stands on
its own bottom.  But I do try to do historical research and I do
try to base my opinions on evidence.  This isn't always easy, I must
admit but what is a better alternative?

Again Brenda writes:

>We're FREE to choose the second in
>line if those thoughts appeal to us more. All credit doesn't have to be
>heaped upon whoever is first, does it?

Yes, you're FREE to do that.  Just as I am free to choose the first in line.
But that is not the issue I was debating with Bruce.  I was debating with
Bruce the issue of why one should accept what Steiner (some third party who
never met Madame Blavatsky) said  about HPB as opposed to accepting what she
and her coworkers said.

Take the same issue and apply C.W. Leadbeater's name to it.  Rudolf Steiner
says a number of "negative" comments about Leadbeater.  Maybe Bruce also
accepts these "negative" statements by Steiner.  I assume you don't.  Yes, yes,
you both are FREE to believe differently.  But my focus would be:  how can
we verify or falsify Steiner's statements? What is the evidence to support
his statements, etc.etc.?

As Brain Hyland said in his 60s song:  "Get the message that I'm sending?. . . "

Daniel