Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00215)

In a message dated 1/18/99 6:53:22 PM, Dallas wrote:

<<If, however, we set (in general) the concept of continual study,

verification, and application - sharing with others what we

discover - so that we may all benefit, -- then that is what I hope

to be able to do, now and in the future.  >>

This is exactly the platform that I am now struggling to establish on this
list.  We study a certain topic (recently, Tibetan Buddhism and Theosophy) and
we examine the matter.  We find many similarities, and some differences.  We
inquire into the matter.  We find reasons for the differences.  We grow by
understanding the relationship of Theosophy to Tibetan Buddhism.  We move on.

One cannot ethically call for "continual study, verification, application" and
then try to block every time a discussion or debate manifests!

Furthermore, there is a *HUGE* difference between stating (factually, with
abundant "proofs") that HPB may have spelled a word wrongly, or mistaken one
name with another -- and criticizing HPB's life work.  As part of my
schoolwork, and as part of my exploration and verification of Theosophy, such
anomalies emerge from time to time.  And I do think it's important to share
with others such things, so that we may all ponder their significance.

On the other hand, there ARE those who seek to undermine HPB.  Such people
impugn her credibility, deny the existence of her Teachers, attack HPB's
intellect, chastity, or background.  Some people will attempt to misprepresent
her, and then attempt to show how silly Theosophy is by killing that "straw
man."  On all of these counts, I stand with Dallas and state that we should
instantly come to HPB's defense.  We cannot stand idly by while our Teacher,
or her Teachers, are pulled down, and the wisdom tradition is dismantled.

But it is quite another thing to disallow any investigation and <gasp>
correction of HPB's statements on x, y, or z.  If list members plan to
regularly oppose discussion on such topics, I will have to systematically
ignore them.  This would be sad, in light of the goal of brotherhood.  It
would be nice to have everyone included in a discussion.  But obstructionism
is directly opposed to the spirit of free inquiry and discussion, and it
shouldn't be tolerated.  Nor do I think discussion should come to a grinding
halt every time someone posts an "anti-investigation" message.

Rich