Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00105)

Dan, it amazes me how a simple statement on my part has become so
consistently misunderstood and misrepresented by you and Paul.  I simply
raised an issue of fairness, and now you are saying that I "beat around the
bush and deal with everything but these three" [untruths].   Dan, I haven't
been following this string close enough to even know what these alleged
"three untruths" are that appear to be so controversial to you--therefore
how could I have "beat around the bush"?  When you earlier tried to goat me
into looking into Paul's assertions, I wrote that I didn't have the time nor
the interest in the issue to do that kind of research right now.  But you
keep insisting.  Why are you putting pressure on Dallas and I to take time
to research and address Paul's latest allegations when you have the
resources, the ability, and evidently plenty of time to do this on your
own?  I asked you this question before, and I'm yet to see you answer.  Are
you missing some resources?  If, so then I will be happy to send you a copy
of whatever you need, providing I have it to give.  Further, what do you
think will be accomplished by all of this?  If I were to document as an
absolute certainty that Paul's assertions are correct or incorrect, who is
it going to help?  Not HPB--she is dead.  Not those who are vested in HPB's
veracity as a matter of faith.  They will not be moved by any information
that contradicts that faith anyway.  Not the academic community.  This is
the wrong forum for that.  Further, even if my researching into this issue
by some miracle resolves the matter, does this mean that every time someone
says something you don't like about HPB, I have some obligation to drop
everything to research an issue that you are perfectly capable of
researching for yourself?  Sounds like you are trying to lead me into a
black hole.  Dan, the allegation that HPB was a liar and a fraud is not only
practically a universally held opinion in academic circles, it is treated as
a given that requires no supporting evidence.  If Paul is trying to make the
point that HPB is a liar, then he is not saying anything different than what
almost everyone else in the academic community has been already saying for
over a century.  So what is the big deal?  Further, it takes five seconds
for someone to write a factually incorrect statement in an academic work.
It then requires someone else to write an entire paper, or sometimes even a
book to show that the off handed statement is wrong.  I think even HPB
realized this problem when she commented that "error moves on an inclined
plane."   IMO, the effort required to correct every factually incorrect
statement about HPB is beyond what anyone could do in a lifetime.  So, the
question is: *if* Paul's assertions are incorrect (as I believe you assume
they are), is it really worth the time and energy it would take to correct
them?  I don't believe so.  Can you give me any reasons that may convince me
otherwise?

If it is worth the time, then what am I going to accomplish here?   As I
wrote  before,  a discussion about truth, lies, deceptions and people's
motivations for them would IMO, be far more fruitful then to merely
determine whether or not HPB was telling the truth, in some given instance.
Other than a tiny group of devotees who treat HPB as an icon on the one
hand, and an even smaller group of students on the other, who do make an
honest effort to study her writings, who really gives a rat's ass about
whether HPB told a so called "untruth" (whatever that is)?
jhe



Caldwell/Graye wrote:

> Daniel Caldwell replies:
>
> Paul, it's too bad that you won't be commenting publicly on these
> issues.
> I was hoping Blavatsky students would deal DIRECTLY
> with the 3 alleged "untruths" by you and Jerry S.
>
> Instead of that, Dallas and Jerry HE beat round the bush and deal
> with everything but these three items! I am still hoping that
> theosophical/Blavatsky students will try their hand at dealing
> *specifically* with these three "untruths".