Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00212)

Jan 18th 1999

Dear Jerry:

Your notes are read.  (and included below for easy reference)

We seem to approach things from different angles.

I ask for proof.  You offer me books (that you don't specifically
list) in bookshops that currently criticize HPB  -- her life -
and her writings.  [ Titles and Authors ? ]

Please.  Let us be specific.

Otherwise the matter is again relegated to opinions.  And being
general, they are inconclusive.

As to philosophy, sorry, but any aspect of popular or translated
and published "Buddhism" does not stand up against the
fundamental doctrines of Theosophy.  Again let me say that the
sources of such opinions or translations ought to be fully given,
and it ought to be stated clearly exactly what doctrines are
contradictory, and why.  Vague generalities are very
inconclusive, and tend to divert the mind of readers from the
strict discipline of seeking and proving for themselves.  Why
deny them that independent privilege ?

The reason is plain (to me) :  Ancient and Immemorial Theosophy
is their source.

The "Doctrine of the Eye" does not answer the 'Doctrine of the
Hart."  (As an example, I refer to what is written (translated)
by HPB, she says from the Senzar, in the VOICE OF THE SILENCE -
THE TWO PATHS  pp. 30-1 and 36-7 in my ULT Edition.  I recognize
many may not agree with that.  However, that does not do away
with the "Heart doctrine."

As to defence, -- you are free to take your path, and I, mine.
But if I see criticism of HPB I will ask for chapter and verse
proofs.  I consider that a "dharma."

Where are yours ?  I mean specifics, and real proofs, not
generalities, or 2nd and 3rd level opinions ?.  Yes, in the past
a number of authors have written slandering HPB  [ there is ample
evidence of this in the exchange of her letters with Mr. A. P.
Sinnett - published in a book titled THE LETTERS OF H.P.Blavatsky
TO A.P.Sinnett" - Edited by Trevor Barker.  Sinnett made himself
to write in refutation SOME INCIDENTS IN THE LIFE OF
H.P.Blavatsky."  Just recently Sylvia Cranston based on
documentary evidence.  Since then I have seen nothing new issued
that has been additional to earlier allegations - settled by
source evidence given in that book.  Have you ?

I would also observe (in my own self-reviewed esteem, of course)
that my adherence to "Theosophy" as a philosophy, and my respect
for HPB, as the "Messenger" of the Masters of Wisdom, is based on
my understanding of Their philosophy.  And the "future" that it
represents, has, (also in my esteem) nothing to what I can
conceive as a "goal" of any kind, for myself.  I am responsible
for what I think, write and say.  Naturally, under karma, I will
reap what consequences there are to reap.


I have said this before:  If we are all in innermost "Essence"
"immortals," then any "goals" we may mentally set for ourselves
this incarnation, are temporary.

If, however, we set (in general) the concept of continual study,
verification, and application - sharing with others what we
discover - so that e may all benefit, -- then that is what I hope
to be able to do, now and in the future.  You, and anyone else,
are always free to disagree in the idea that our World is one of
the great Schools of Egoic progression - where the mind of man,
independent and free, -- can choose and pursue its own
self-chosen "Path," and self-chosen "goals."

I equate these with the ethics that emerge from the practice of
"Wisdomism," however named.  And to this I add that I am a very
humble "searcher for Truth."  I do not claim any particular
standing, but I do question.  And, when I see those who evidently
know far more than I do attacked I protest (as I have your
statements) and ask for that precision which you ought to advance
from the first (in my esteem) if you desire to be entirely
credible.

I am strongly of the opinion that we all owe respect and even
reverence to those great Instructors (from whom, many, if not all
our current religions an philosophies are derived).

Hence I approve and endorse the idea of UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD
which is the "First Object" of the Theosophical Society - the
present-day representative of the immemorial THEOSOPHICAL
MOVEMENT.

Best wishes,

Dallas

> From: Jerry Schueler
> Sent:	Monday, January 18, 1999 5:51 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: DEFENCE OF HPB == Esoteric or Exoteric ?

>I consider it a pressing duty for all who have benefited from
HPB
>to challenge anyone who dares criticize or condemn her in any
>way.
>

Dallas, although this may be good-intentioned, it does poor
service to HPB, and she would be the first to say so. A little
of the criticism is deserved. I have yet to see anyone on
this list "condemn" her in any way.


>They ought to be asked for sources and proofs - point-blanc.
And
>so far, there have been none that are substantiated.  I have
>consistently done this for years a few answers and those who did
>were only able to offer secondary or tertiary "sources."
>

This, as you well know is false. Both Rich and I have "proved"
beyond anyone's doubt that her Tibetan Buddhism was a bit weak
in some areas and wrong in a few others. If quoting sources
isn't proof, then nothing can be and you are like an ostrich with
its head in the sand seeing only your own images of reality
(which
I trust is not the case).


>The Philosophy of Theosophy has never so far been successfully
>criticized or attacked philosophically or ethically.  This ought
>to be noted carefully.
>

Here again your are so wrong as to sound almost silly. Go to
your nearest bookstore or library and read some of the books
published against her.  They may not change your viewpoint,
but they certainly are successful in the public's eyes. Why do
you think that the TS membership is so low (far less than 1%
of the public after over 100 years).  Another example, closer
to my own background is Mary Baker Eddy, who lombasted
Theosophy almost as nastily as HPB lombasted Christian
Science. Ask any Christian Scientist and they will tell you
that Eddy's criticisms are "successful."


>If we neglect this (her defense), then we to that extent (by our
>silence) agree to those insults being continued - and they are
>not necessarily directed at Her, but also at the Masters !
>

So far, your "defense" has done about as much good as my
criticisms have done. On the whole, I like and respect her works
very much. However, when I study other religions and philosophies
and compare them against her work I occassionally find a
mistake in her work. I posted two glaring and obvious errors in
the Inner Group Teachings, for example, and received back
not a single word from anyone on this list. Those interested
obviously checked it out, discovered I was right, and then just
ignored it. Rich and I have showed that she was in error about
the Red Caps and probably about the Dugpas, and except for
name calling and emotional eruptions no real defense was
offered, nor could it be. This is how you and other
"fundamentalists"
handle real criticism.


>It is, in my esteem, our individual Karma that acts as a
"test" -
>an "occult test", please, to see if we are truly alert and truly
>grateful to Her and to the Great and ancient Masters of Wisdom
to
>whom we owe all that we have so far become, and for what we have
>received and profited by.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Dallas.


You apparently believe that if you stick by Blavatsky in spite of
obvious and ligitamite criticism, the Masters will come to you
with thanks and praise for your loyalty and steadfastness.
Perhaps
the real "test" is to see if we know how to think for ourselves?

Jerry S.


theos-talk@theosophy.com

of