Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00373)

Dr. Bain,

In your latest reponse to my post you write:

> But no picture.  No doubt they said they had met HPB's "Adept"
> teachers, and I agree that Olcott definitely did (Old Diary Leaves).
> However, how many of these testimonials can be regarded as from
> independent witnesses with no "theosophical" axe to grind is another
> matter.

> As you have chosen to use the remainder of my post to lauch into yet
> another monologue on Paul Johnson's book, I am sure you will forgive
> me if I ignore it, along with your seemingly confrontatational style.
>
> Take it up with Paul, if you must, but I suspect that most of us are more
> than well-enough informed about your views on the matter.
>
> BTW, I have never met Jesus, nor wanted to.  Whether he existed is
> irrelevant to me.  Any teaching attributed to him is worth considering
> *on its merits* - as is also the case with HPB, "masters" or none.


Let me first briefly address the "side issues" which you deem necessary
to bring into the discussion.

Why bring up my "seemingly confrontational style"? I could, no doubt,
likewise
dreg up from previous theos-talk postings examples of your own
"seemingly confrontational style."  But "your style" or "my style" is
a side issue and only distracts from addressing directly the *main
issue* of
our last few postings.

I have simply tried to be direct and honest
with you in bringing to your attention certain facts and reasons which
seemed
relevant to your call for "real evidence".  If this
is confrontational on my part, then so is your own reply to Dallas (see
below).

Again when you mention my so-called "monologue on Paul Johnson's book"
and
then write that you will ignore my subsequent comments, you again
sidestep
the major issue which prompted my replies to your previous postings.
Dr. Bain, my only reason in bringing up Johnson's comments about Ooton
Liatoo, etc. was simply to point out that even the "skeptical" Johnson
has accepted
*some of the testimony from theosophical witnesses concerning the
Masters.*
I simply wanted to know what your position and assessment was on this
testimony
mentioned by Johnson.  Certainly this is relevant to the main issue
which
I have attempted to clarify in my last two postings.

And what is that "main" issue?

Dallas Tenbroeck had originally written:

>> >we need to become familiar with all
>> >she [ HPB ] wrote on behalf of the Great Brotherhood of the Wise, of
>> >which she and the Masters of Wisdom are a part.

And you had replied:

>> We have only her word for this, together with the Mahatma letters.  It is
>> all words.  I  - or anyone else - can make similar claims, but no one has
>> yet been seen to be able to back them up with real evidence.

I have no idea what prompted you to write these words.  But in order to
try to understand your view and position I felt it was necessary to ask
you some questions.  Especially asking you for a definition of "real
evidence".
Furthermore, is it really historically true and factual for you to state
that "we have only her word for this, together with the Mahatma letters.
. . .
no one has yet been seen to be able to back them up with real
evidence"?  THIS
WAS THE QUESTION THAT NEEDED AN ANSWER.

To my question concerning what constituted "real evidence", you then
responded:

> >> At least a photo of HPB with a Mahatma. Maybe a picture of the Great
> >> Brotherhood.  Testimony from others who could confirm from their own
> >> experience that what she said was also what they found.

*So do you now acknowledge* that "testimony from others. . . etc." would
indeed
constitute "real evidence" if it met certain standards?

And to this, I most recently wrote:

>We have the testimony of *more than 25 individuals* during Madame
>Blavatsky's lifetime who said that they had met H.P.B's Adept Teachers.
>See my article at:
> http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johnargu.htm#Appendix

And then you replied in turn:

> But no picture.  No doubt they said they had met HPB's "Adept"
> teachers, and I agree that Olcott definitely did (Old Diary Leaves).
> However, how many of these testimonials can be regarded as from
> independent witnesses with no "theosophical" axe to grind is another
> matter.

In light of the clarifications you've given to my original questions, I
ask
you as well as other readers to reassess the factuality of your
original comment to Dallas, i.e.:

>> We have only her word for this, together with the Mahatma letters.  It is
>> all words.  I  - or anyone else - can make similar claims, but no one has
>> yet been seen to be able to back them up with real evidence.

I will simply say that IMO this original comment by you was highly
misleading and
historically unfactual. *Especially* since you have subsequently
admitted
the existence of Olcott's testimony in OLD DIARY LEAVES.

Now you raise the question:

> However, how many of these testimonials can be regarded as from
> independent witnesses with no "theosophical" axe to grind is another
> matter.

But, Dr. Bain, this new issue is a long way down the road
from your original position that "We have ONLY her word for this. . .
."!!

And your last comment:

> BTW, I have never met Jesus, nor wanted to.  Whether he existed is
> irrelevant to me.  Any teaching attributed to him is worth considering
> *on its merits* - as is also the case with HPB, "masters" or none.

is again sidestepping the main issue which you yourself originally
brought up.  Were we discussing "teachings"??????

What does consideration of the teachings have to do with your
request or demand for:

> >> At least a photo of HPB with a Mahatma. Maybe a picture of the Great
> >> Brotherhood.  Testimony from others who could confirm from their own
> >> experience that what she said was also what they found.

If the existence of HPB's Masters is *really* "irrelevant" to you, then
why
indulge in all your comments as given above?

One more comment and I will end my rather long post.

You write:

> However, how many of these testimonials can be regarded as from
> independent witnesses with no "theosophical" axe to grind is another
> matter.

Good question, but how do we truly judge these tesimonials?  By what
standards do we assess that the witness is "independent" and
has no "theosophical" axe to grind? And even if the witness has a
"theosophical axe" to grind (whatever you mean by that?), do we simply
dismiss that testimony?  See what the historians Jacques Barzun and
Henry Graff write in their classic book THE MODERN RESEARCHER:

In regards to "dismissing an author [or witness] after having 'doped
out'
that he is a Whig, a Catholic, a Dutchman, a Muslim, an alcoholic,
[a Theosophist!], or a divorced man," Barzun and Graff comment:

"Dismissal or systematic discounting of what a person says because
of his or her nationality, religion, or personal history is only the
crude and dull form of the delicate assessment here called for.  ONE
MIGHT AS WELL SPARE ONESELF THE EFFORT OF READING AT ALL IF ONE IS
GOING TO MAKE THE TEXT A MERE PEG FOR A GLOATING DISTRUST.  The aim
should be rather to obtain a large return in knowledge, some of it
held under caution, until two, three or four other accounts have
modified or strenghtened its solid parts.  In short, reader's
suspiciousness is no answer to the question of writer's [or witness']
bias.
On the contrary, sympathy is prerequisite to understanding. . . ."

Forgive me if I again seem confrontational with you, but
your initial statement to Dallas appeared unsympathetic and even worse
historically unfactual.  Hoping that any future discussions will focus
on the
main issue instead of irrelevant side issues.

Daniel H. Caldwell