Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00181)

We start out with this post from me:

> Daniel,
>
> You ask why I LEAVE OUT [sic] the next statement from HPB that you
> quote.  It's because the question dealt with by Dallas and Kym
> was *simply* whether HPB was the first and sole source of these
> teachings, or whether they were previously available.  I stopped
> quoting when I got HPB's own answer to that question.

which answers Daniel's question-- which was really no question at
all but a typically prosecutorial demand for defense against an
implicit accusation.  Then I add:

 Where
> she got the small proportion of her SD that isn't found
> "scattered" in thousands of other texts is irrelevant to the
> question under discussion.  If she derived *some* teachings from more advanced
> students, what relevance does this have to the question of
> whether she then blended together a wide variety of different
> teachings from different "advanced students" past and present, many of which
> were in writing-- which is what she seems to be saying?

None of this, as best I can tell, is under discussion with Reed's
current attack.

  And by the way, don't
> "scientific or other works" include every single work ever published?  And
> unpublished?  Thus perhaps leaving the part "given or suggested" as a
> rather small proportion of the whole?  The SD has after all a huge number of
> citations.

But here Reed accuses me of deliberate fraud by not quoting, or
being influenced by, HPB's claim that "...this work is a partial
statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced
students, supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of
her own study and observation."

Now we are several posts down the line from the original
controversy, and I was not in the above passage commenting on
HPB's claims but rather the description in the Mahatma letter
cited by Daniel.  THAT's where the "given or suggested" phrase
comes from.  But since Reed brings up the HPB passage which would
seem to contradict my reading of the Mahatma letter, let me say
flatly that what she means by "a few details" must be a most
unusual interpretation of that phrase.  Anyone can look at the SD
and see just how much of it is based on written texts.  Seems to
me that Reed's argument on this is with obvious facts, not with
my failure to notice that HPB makes a claim that is clearly
in conflict with the facts apparent in the book she is introducing.
And I did indeed *fail to notice* it, not deliberately ignore it.

The original point, which Daniel and Reed seem to wish to obscure
by making personal attacks on me is well summarized by this
exchange between Dallas and Bjorn.
> >
> >
> > Without HPB's writings (accredited several times by the Masters) we would
> > have no Theosophy.
>
> If you read Key to Theosophy you will see that HPB very clearly contradicts this
> statement of yours, repeatedly.

Reed writes, quoting me but adding the capital letters typical of
Theosophical fundamentalist discourse:

> =A0Where she got the SMALL PROPORTION of her SD that isn't found
> "scattered" in thousands of other texts is irrelevant to the question under
> discussion.=A0 If she derived *SOME* teachings from more advanced
> students, what relevance does this have to the question of whether she then
> blended together a wide variety of different teachings from different
> "advanced students" past and present, many of which were in writing-- which
> is what she seems to be saying?
> =A0...=A0 Thus perhaps leaving the part "given or suggested" [to her] as a
> RATHER SMALL PROPORTION of the whole?=A0
>
> Reed says:
> So you conclude in various ways above that her share in adding information
> was minimal.

No, that's not at all what I conclude.  It's not *her* share that I
was concluding was minimal.  Rather, the share described in the
Mahatma letter as coming from *them* which was-- everything not
annotated from scientific or other texts.  Any reader can see for
him or herself what a large portion of the SD falls in the
category "annotated from scientific and other texts."

>But if you are going to use this passage of HPB's as your proof
text

Big if.  I was in no way using HPB's passage as a "proof text," nor
the Mahatma letter.  Simply speculating on their meaning in
light of the clear fact that in the SD there are thousands
of citations to books read by HPB.  The whole business of using
these writings as proof texts in doctrinal wars, just described
so well by Kym, is the Theosophical fundamentalist game.  Was
just trying to undermine it by giving an alternative reading.

 then we need to observe that you have omitted her OWN statement in THAT
> context where it contradicts YOUR presentation.

Omitted is not quite the right word.  I did not discuss it, was
not thinking of it.  Yes, it contradicts what I conclude.  But it
also contradicts obvious facts.  However, to omit something
implies that one decides to do so after having contemplated it.
I did not.
>
> Reed:
> But that last sentence gives her view: "supplemented in a FEW DETAILS ONLY,
> by the results of her own study and observation."=A0 This directly=
>  contradicts
> how you just described her contribution.

So?

=A0 You omitted these following=
>  words
> of hers and they directly contradict how you had just positioned her.=A0=
>  Shame
> on you Paul for quoting out of context.

Shame and blame are precisely what Theosophical fundamentalists
have been pouring on my head for years now, so I guess there's
no reason for me to expect any different from you.

Instead of all this runaround and diversionary attacks on me, why
don't you and Daniel respond directly to the issue on the table,
the debate between Dallas and Kym?  You all are so keen on making
*me personally* the issue all the time.  To most folks on this
list, as best I can tell, it's apparent that this is a sign of intellectual and
spiritual bankruptcy.  Unable to make cogent arguments *for* your
own point of view (or for some reason disinclined to do so), you
instead drag the list through the mud of your hostility for one
person who seems to symbolize something you deeply hate and fear.
Why not get over all this personal attack stuff and focus on the
issues?  You guys weaken your position every time you jump on
someone like this.

PJ