Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00573)

Dr. A.M.Bain wrote:
>
> W. Dallas TenBroeck <dalval@nwc.net> writes
> >Dear Kym:
> >
> >Before supposing any more it might be a good idea to dip into THE
> >SECRET DOCTRINE.  The question of "god" is discussed from pages
> >14 to 18  in the 1st volume, and elsewhere ( see the INDEX ) ;
> >also, on the subject of evolution, which evolution do you mean
> >physiological, emotional, mental spiritual ?  Each one is
> >separate, yet interblended in man.
>
> Dear Dal,
>
> I don't intend to be contentious, but do you have personal experience of
> these different sorts of evolution, and can you explain it in your *own*
> words?  I suspect your meaning is really something like "According to
> the teaching given by HPB in the Secret Doctrine  (which I [Dal] believe
> is true ....").  If I am right, it would be a fairer way of getting your views
> and feelings across.  As your post stands, it reads like the doctrine of a
> sect or church, inviolate, certain and adbsolute truth, and brings
> immediately to mind Doss's post re the uneducated and ignorant, who
> would *certainly* IMO, believe what you have said was dogma, and
> was beleived by all theosophists of all shades, just because they
> describe themselves as theosophists.
>
> I do this, but I no more take the SD of the writings of HPB or any other
> writer as "gospel truth" - any more than I take the teachings of the
> gospels as gospel *truth*.
>
> Sincerely and in fellowship,
>
> Alan


Daniel Caldwell replies:

Dr. Bain,

Concerning Dallas' quoted statement, you write:

>As your post stands, it reads like the doctrine of a
> sect or church, inviolate, certain and adbsolute truth . . .

Are you, by chance, reading *a little too much* into
Dallas' words????

Dallas not only gives quotations and citations from Blavatsky
texts but he ALSO explains theosophical teachings in his own
words.

This is not the only occasion when it has appeared that
you are "irritated" with Dallas' method of quoting and citing
various references from Madame Blavatsky's writings.  You may
not appreciate these references but I and other readers may
find the citations useful for our individual studies. I hope
Dallas *will continue* to quote and cite material that he
thinks is appropriate to the given discussion.

Also I believe Dallas has a right to say that he believes
HP Blavatsky is *knowledgeable* and/or *correct* on a given point or
subject.
This is not the same thing as claiming that HPB is giving
out "inviolate, certain and absolute truth"!!

I would hope that individuals can have serious discussions here on
Theos-Talk
about what HPB wrote and taught without being labelled "dogmatists" and
"fundamentalists" and accused of holding her teachings
as "inviolate, certain and absolute truth."