Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00005)

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
>>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.

BRENDA TUCKER WRITES:
>Daniel, I remember you specifically asking why he would choose to believe
>Steiner over what HPB and the adepts have written!?! Several times!
>. . . . . .
>
>It's fine not to understand something and to ask for clarification, but
>don't you remember asking why he would choose to believe Steiner (and
>Harris, was it?) over HPB?

DANIEL CALDWELL REPLIES:

Thanks Brenda for your comments.  Yes, I did ask Bruce why he
choose to believe Steiner over HPB.  I assume he had good reasons
for such a choice.* I simply wanted to know what those reasons were.*
I can't read minds.  And Bruce has the choice whether he wants
to share those reasons or not.  It is also equally true that I don't care
whether
Bruce or Mickey Mouse made the statements, I was interested in the issues
and "facts" behind the statements.

Bruce stated he believed Madame Blavatsky was deluded (about
her connections with certain Masters).  This is a serious charge and
should be carefully considered.  I assume if someone made a
"negative" comment/charge  about C.W. Leadbeater that you might also
speak up.

BRENDA TUCKER WRITES:
>What I see as a difference in the two illustrations above is that Johnson
>does his ruffling in a standard method, he wrote a book. You choose to do
>your ruffling with an audience that may or may not speak their minds, and
>then demand answers from the party you are accusing.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:
Well, it is a different medium of communication.  But so what?
Again the audience has the decision either to speak or not speak their
minds. As to Bruce, yes, he makes serious charges against HPB.  Maybe
the charges are true, maybe not.  The pro and con needs to be aired out
and let the chips fall where they may.  It seems like Bruce was holding
 his own and trying to be informative.

BRENDA TUCKER WRITES:
>My difficulty here is that you say that you are doing historical research
>and yet this is not theosophy. Theosophy is living the teachings. Why do we
>have to be bound by your love and yen for history? The rules there are
>certainly different than they would be for students of the wisdom.
>. . .  .
>This is all I'm really interested in, kind of. I really find history droll.

DANIEL CALDWELL WRITES:

Certainly, "living the teachings" is part of the Theosophical life.  But I
believe Theosophy is more than just that, even though that is a very
important part of the whole ball of wax.

No, Brenda, you do not have to be bound by my "love and yen for
history".  Ignore my posts if they bore or upset you.  Neither do I
have to be "bound" by your lack of interest in Theosophical history.

But Bruce and I were discussing certain aspects of Theosophical
history, i.e. certain alleged "facts" concerning HPB's life.  If you're
not interested in that, please "turn the channel" and find something
more to your liking.  Is that so difficult to do?

Brenda, I'm not trying to be difficult in what I've said above.  I am simply
trying to be forthright and honest with you.  Can you appreciate that?

Different strokes for different folks?

Daniel