Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00000)

According to owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com:
>
from Dallas:
>
> I did not challenge Johnson I asked for sources or proof that HPB
> spoke or wrote "untruths."

Dallas, I think the verdict would be unanimous that the tone you
adopted and continue to adopt when addressing (?) me is not one
of simple "asking" but indeed of "challenging" me to provide
sources, proof, etc.  Which you can't even bring yourself to do
directly.  For some reason you can only talk to me in the third
person.  Why is that?

  He made the allegation.  He offered
> no proof.

The allegation was not, in that case, that HPB was guilty of
untruths, but rather that the subject of whether or not she was
could not be raised for calm, fraternal discussion because
someone would freak out.  I was thinking of you when I wrote
that.
>
> I protested on HPB's behalf -- since she is "dead," and unable to
> respond, or explain.  Nothing like that ought to be allowed to
> pass, in my esteem, by any decent person.

So every decent person is morally obliged to freak out any time
any living person makes some reference to a dead person having
not always told the truth?  That would make the work of
historians and biographers pretty unpleasant!

  Silence is consent.  I
> do not consent.

It is not yours to consent to my thoughts or expression thereof,
any more than it is mine to consent to yours.  There's some
stupendous arrogance behind your role of "thought police" on this
list.
>
> I will respect anything which carries sources which can be
> verified by any one of us, -- so we can make up our own minds.  I
> object to being told I should accept anything which is not
> explained (with adequate referencing) from the start.

Who on this list told you what you should accept?  There's only
one person around here who seems to be in that sort of mode of
thinking.
>
> I do not intend to engage in argument or controversy.

But you are one of the leading persons making this list an
argumentative and controversial place.  Precisely because you
have this amazing assumption that it is up to you to decide
what is and is not allowable for others to think or write.
>
> I am interested solely in the study of, practice and promulgation
> of "original" Theosophy that she brought for us to study.  I
> regard Mme. H.P.Blavatsky as my teacher, and intend to protest
> unverified attacks on her integrity.

You use the word "attacks."  But others would see the things you
freak out about as simply "inquiries," or "discussions," or
"speculations" concerning the subject.  Your adrenaline starts
racing the minute anyone challenges your belief system, and you
get into this mindset of "I'm being attacked, I must attack in
return."  You obviosuly identify with HPB.  You see HPB as
your teacher, you think the world should share your exact vision
of her, and even a fellow Theosophist who has a more critical
view of her is seen as "attacking" both her and you for simply
raising obvious questions that have been raised many times
before.
>
> Let any one challenge Theosophy,  if that can be done.  But,
> taking advantage of the "dead," who cannot respond is

What do you mean by "taking advantage of?"  I presume every
historian, every biographer, every John Q. Public who ever
thinks or writes of *any* historical figure that "X didn't always
tell the truth" would be subject to this kind of accusation from
you.

  -- I leave
> it to you to qualify.
>
> I hope that my position in this matter is clear.        Dallas
> TenBroeck
>
> Theosophy is a subject for debate, if anyone wishes to try it.
>
> H.P.Blavatsky is not subject to debate,

On whose authority do you state this?  On what authority do you
presume to squelch discussions which are on subjects that
displease you?

 as none of us are
> undertakers, bior dare we impute motives to one who is unable to
> answer or explain.

Not sure about "bior" but any effort to understand a historical
figure *requires* that we impute motives to one who is unable to
answer or explain.  What's to freak out about?

>
> To me the proposition is a simple and direct one.
> Dallas

As is, apparently, the proposition that you have the right and
obligation to attempt to control what others can think and say
and discuss, which has to meet your requirements before being
"permissible."

That's worth rethinking.

Paul