Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00186)

Dear Dallas,

I appreciate your reply.  At least four times I had to clarify that the
issue I raised was a matter of fairness and each time my statement was
disregarded and contradicted.  These are strange times when one can no
longer write a note and have any say over how it was intended to be
understood.  Perhaps this post modernist attitude also has a bearing
upon how HPB is to be interpreted today.  It appears that the intended
meaning of the author is to be disregarded.  Whether or not she wrote an
"untruth" is all a matter of who can compose the cleverest argument for
or against.

I also appreciate your position--that people ought to speak up on behalf
of those we believe have been wronged.  Sadly, to little of this is done
anymore. That was don't in the days when ethics were regarded as more
absolute and less situational.  OTOH,  I have spend the last several
years digging out and reading academic papers concerning W.B. Yeats'
relationship to HPB.  So far, I'm yet to find any significant papers on
the subject that do not contain at least one error of fact which  could
have been easily avoided if the writer had just taken a little time to
do some research into theosophy.  The errors are so numerous, that it
would take lifetimes to correct them.  This situation also brings to
mind the late Iverson Harris who devoted the final fifty years of his
life to writing letters and correcting errors of fact concerning HPB and
Point Loma issues.  His output of letters fill several full sized filing
cabinets.  I have read through a good sampling of these letters, and
find that he for the most part did a pretty fair job of citing the
errors of fact and supplying documentation that would correct them.
Many of these letters were written to published authors or articles and
books.  I also noticed that the academic writers who bothered to
acknowledge his efforts, usually simply blew off his documentation and
made no changes in their subsequent works.  The only exception that I'm
aware is the late Dr. Greenwalt, who worked closely with the Point Loma
survivors and as a result made many changes in the second edition of his
history of the Point Loma community.  As I say, Greenwalt was an
exception, not the rule.  This has left me to seriously question whether
it is either wise or fruitful to feel obligated to look into every
allegation dreamed up by the latest writer.  My experience has been that
while it takes only a minute to write a careless statement, it takes a
great deal of research and often a very long essay in order to
investigate, correct and document corrections to the carelessly made
statement.  If the writer lacks the intellectual integrity to take the
corrections to heart and to make changes, then as Iverson has
demonstrated, the effort is wasted.

As for Paul's latest allegations, the subject has been of such deep
interest to me, that I could not even tell you what they are, except
that HPB supposedly told three "untruths."  As I told Paul, I'm far more
interested in getting a clear idea of what he means by "untruth" before
I would invest any time into even looking at those allegations.  Whether
his allegation is supportable or not,  I of course, have no idea, and
without a lot of clarification regarding Paul's position, I would not
even have a bases to even formulate an opinion.  I trust that Dan, who
seems to enjoy sparring with Paul, will sooner or later post his
research on the question.

Past experience has also led me to conclude that posting hard won
research via email is like swimming in quick sand.  I can put hours into
looking into an issue, more hours into composing and documenting
carefully researched information, and post it to a discussion on that
subject, only to find that a few months later a discussion on the same
topic will repeat as if the first one never occurred.  Consequently, I
have since put my efforts elsewhere.

Best
Jerry


W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:

> June 5th 1998
>
> Dear Jerry:
>
> Thanks for the note of the 4th to Daniel in which you set
> straight the matter of the "pressures" placed on me and yourself
> for opinions concerning HPB.
>
> I protested the unsubstantiated statement that Mr. Johnson made.
> I consider that I have as much right to protest on her behalf, as
> he has to make his view known.  And in fact, I consider my
> position to be essential if HPB is to be given "equal time." It
> was made to defend one who was taken advantage of in her
> "absence."  It is a matter of fairness.  As I have said several
> times.  All of us owe too much to HPB because of her presentation
> of Theosophy.  Thus we have no right to stand in judgment over
> her.  Do we do so over our Professors or our Teachers ?
>
> As I am able to see it, HPB came to sow the seeds of an entirely
> new civilization.  The mission of HPB was to break the molds of
> men's mind-sets, and to destroy old modes of thought.
>
> The freedom to think and discover supplied new ideas and ideals
> for our consideration.  The collective mind of mankind (thanks to
> Theosophical ideas) now stands open to a greater vista than it
> previously had.  The effect of this can be traced in almost every
> department of living and of scientific discovery during the
> passage of the last hundred years.  Primary to all has been the
> matter of ethical responsibility, based on universal concepts
> that all free minds can investigate themselves.  Secondarily,
> some order has been restored in the matter of investigating the
> "astral" and the "occult."  This is because the Theosophy that
> HPB taught advances the rules, details and the regulations of
> those things.  Those who have written on theosophy after her
> death have very largely muddled her teachings.  It is, in my
> opinion, far safer to go directly to what she had to teach, than
> take any second-hand writing to "tell it as it is."
>
> One of her contemporaries wrote of her:
>
> "Mme. Blavatsky has never deceived anyone, though she has often
> been obliged to let others deceive themselves."  PATH IV p. 104.
>
> In the MAHATMA LETTERS, on. p. 272 we find the statement made on
> her behalf by her Teacher:
>
> "She is forbidden to say what she knows.  You may cut her to
> pieces and she will not tell.  Nay--she is ordered in cases of
> need to mislead people;  and, were she more of a natural born
> liar--she might be happier...She is too truthful, too outspoken,
> too incapable of dissimulation;  and now she is being daily
> crucified for it..."
>
> On p. 314 (Idem.) we may read:
>
> "You can never know her as we do, therefore--none of you will
> ever be able to judge her impartially or correctly.  You see the
> surface of things;  and what you would term "virtue," holding but
> to appearances, we--judge but after having fathomed the object to
> its profoundest depth, and generally leave the appearances to
> take care of themselves.  In your opinion H.P.B. is, at best...as
> quaint, strange woman, a psychological riddle;  impulsive and
> kindhearted, yet not free from the vice of untruth.  We, on the
> other hand, under the garb of eccentricity and folly--we find a
> profounder wisdom in her inner Self that you will ever find
> yourselves able to perceive.  In the superficial details of her
> homely, hard-working, common-place daily life and affairs, you
> discern but impracticality, womanly impulses, often absurdity and
> folly;  we, on the contrary, light daily upon traits of her inner
> nature the most delicate and refined, and which would cost an
> uninitiated psychologist years of constant and keen observation,
> and many an hour of close analysis and efforts to draw out of the
> depth of that most subtle of mysteries--human mind--and one of
> her most complicated machines,--H.P.B.'s mind--and thus learn to
> know her true inner Self."
>
> Is it suddenly wrong to say publicly that I deeply respect and
> honor HPB, and that I owe much, if not all of my knowledge to her
> ?
>
> On her own behalf she wrote:
>
> "What I do believe in is:  " 1.)  the unbroken oral teachings
> revealed by living divine men to the elect among men;  2.)  that
> it has reached us unaltered;  and 3.)  that the MASTERS are
> thoroughly versed in the science based on such unaltered
> teaching."
> LUCIFER, Vol. V, p. 157
>
> Speaking of the source of her knowledge she wrote:
>
>     [ this is also for Jerry Schueler' post of June 4th]
>
> "I got my drop (a draught of the golden water) from my Master
> (the living one)...he is a Saviour, he who leads you to finding
> the Master within yourself."
> HPB Letter to Hartmann.  PATH X 369.
>
> Much more could be added, but this is already more than necessary
> to make the points that strike me as important in this.
>
> With best wishes to you as always,        Dallas
>
> ==================================
>
>