Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00038)

W. Dallas TenBroeck <dalval@nwc.net> writes
>June 1st 1998
>
>Dear Alan:
>
>I am apparently violating some tacit basis for the handling of
>history.
>It seems immunity is granted to those who dare or desire to
>ventilate their opinions.  So I make mine known.
>
>How can you or I "debate" HPB ?"  We can not.

Clearly (to most of us I think) the concept of "debating HPB" or
anyone else is the colloquial use of a person's name as a means of
defining them as a historical figure complete with character, personality,
soul, etc., so that when we "debate" a "person" we are actually
discussing their nature and character as it appears to us on the basis of
the evidence available to us.
>
>She is herself, as you are, or I am--each one an individual Self.
>We are not subject to being debated.  Someone may say they don't
>like something about us, what we wear, what we eat, how we speak,
>what we do, etc.
>
>Yes, HPB is a historical figure.  If she is to be described, then
>let it be an honest description.  I do not care to hear (and I
>said this it plainly) about her, or anyone else, evil inferred.

How are we to define an honest description?  Sometimes, with some
historical, or even living people, evil may be infered because evil is
perceived to be apparent.
>
>I have always thought when I hear or read things of that nature
>that somehow the author, or the person repeating something that
>cannot be gainsaid by the person concerned is taking advantage of
>their absence and of the public's avidity for slander, and ill
>speaking -- always the attempt to reduce a person to a lower
>level, morally.  No thank you.  Not for me.

Is there no room in your world then for Biography?  Many TS fans
applaud the Sylvia Cranston biography, others regard it with less
esteem.  Personally I have not read it.  Your post suggests that HPB is
in some way "absent" simply because she has passed from this plane.
Have you looked at the next plane and observed she is not there?
Perhaps (even quite likely) she is more than aware that attacks upon her
integrity take place now, *just as they did when she was here*.
>
>None of us is fit to do that in my esteem, whether it is HPB or
>anyone else.

How are you qualified to make such a statement?

>  When we have written a Secret Doctrine and secured
>the backing of the Mahatmas, we may be able to debate WITH her.
>But in her absence, no.

As the existence of the Mahatmas and their precise identities has long
been a matter of dispute in itself,  I am quite sure that if HPB has
something to say to us *today* in real earth time, she will get the
message through somehow.  You cannot prove her absence except in
visual terms relating to the body she occupied until the time of her
"death" - but there is no death, so because you cannot see her, it
doesn't mean she isn't there.

>  As I said before, everyone of us who
>use, or work with Theosophy, are her pupils and owe her a debt of
>gratitude.

Agreed 100%

>  I do not consider it honorable or respectful to try
>to demean her.

It is neither of these things to try to demean anyone with malicious
intent, but criticism of a person's character or work is always legitimate
- and HPB was very good at it herself.  She did so with regard to both
the living and the dead!
>
>I would say about Jesus the same thing.

Jesus said some pretty cruel and unfriendly things.  To these I object,
supposing him to have been correctly quoted.  There are plenty of
people who would seek to "demean" myself because I have concluded
that the evidence I have had available to me concerning him - which is a
great deal more than a great deal! - shows quite cearly that the equation
Jesus = God is false.
>
>About C W L -- well there are court judgments.  If we are going
>to debate his character, we will have to give both sides.  He has
>done some good, and he had great potential, as one of the
>Masters' early letters of encouragement to him reveals.  That
>would have to be mentioned. Same would be for anyone whose past
>is under review or characterization.
>
>To speak ill of the dead is cowardly I would say.  If HPB were
>here she could handle the matter herself.  As she is not, I pick
>up the cudgels !  Is that so strange ?

Hitler is dead.  Hitler was evil. His deeds demonstrate the fact. I am
cowardly to say this?
>
>Somewhere I must be missing a clue.

I fear you are correct here.
>
>That in my seem is an example of why history is not a science.
>It does not deal in facts anymore, but in selected opinions.  If
>it is a matter of opinions then I voice mine.  And I have done
>so.

"History" has never dealt in facts alone, and historians are selective in
the facts they use.  What we call "history" is indeed the opinions of
contemporary writers (of whatever era) regarding the interpretation of
the facts.  None of us is obliged to accept any particular historian's
interpretation.

History may, for example, repeat the writings of a person, but rarely
records how many drinks thay had when writing it, nor how many times
they farted.  We all fart.
>
>I hope this helps explain my position.            Dallas
>
To a degree, but I suspect that to many of us it comes across as
heroine-worship, and that you *might* have elevated HPB to the status
of a deity.  Sorry to say this, but much of what you write gives this kind
of impression - not least including your present post.

In sincerity and fellowship,

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk