Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00163)

Daniel wrote to Paul:

>Your "quoting" from the Secret Doctrine is a good example of taking
>HPB's words out of context.  Why didn't you also quote her words
>immediately following?

Daniel, you utilize partial quotations that help you prove a point - if you
demand that others post bigger chunks of quotations, even though it doesn't
apply to one's argument, in reality, for complete fairness, one should
quote entire books.  Is this what you seek?  What are the limits, according
to your standards?

Do not hold Paul or anyone to the same rules you do not yourself adhere to.

But, more importantly, in your zeal to prove Paul vacant, you have missed
his main point.  His point was (with some addition of mine included -
fairly or unfairly):  People have taken the writings of HPB and made them
into weapons of war.  Same as all fundamentalists, really.  If over-zealous
followers of HPB come upon someone who disagrees with them, they accuse
them immediately of ignorance and dismiss them.  Dallas does this with an
impressive touch of frost which seems to have been carefully nurtured over
the years.  For those who have a need for "authority" in their lives,
Dallas is an icon.  For those who feel little need for "authority" - who,
like me, prefer to listen to their 'inner voice' or 'inner guru' already
present in all of us - Dallas and a few others on this list are a major
turn-off.

Those who use the writings of HPB to degrade and humiliate instead of
uplift and comfort are the ones responsible for the slow death of the TS
and the ridicule of HPB.

But, Paul is right - trying to talk to Theosophical fundamentalists is like
spitting in the wind.  They neither listen or give much of a damn, anyway.


Kym