Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00225)

In a message dated 1/18/99 3:01:44 PM, gschueler@netgsi.com writes:

>[Rich]< I should think that mature Theosophists have
>>,better things to do with their time than to defend
>>HPB from imaginary attacks from her own supporters.
>
>This is exactly what I have been finding lately. Instead
>of us all trying to work together to discuss (and finding
>what may be errors IS discussion) Theosophy, there
>are two or three who feel the need to flame anyone
>who disagrees with a single word of Blavatsky. A note
>to the effect that "I disagree and think that you may
>be mistaken" would be sufficient, but the emotional
>charge behind the words indicates to me that there is
>a lot of projecting of repressed emotions and fears
>going on here. I am being to think that some on this
>list are very much afraid that at least some of these
>"errors" may be right, and that this would level their
>house of cards, exactly like Christian fundamentalists
>rail even today against archeologists in spite of a lot
>of scientific evidence.

Finding errors that do not refer directly to theosophical ideas could also be
nit picking.  Blowing such errors of translation or reference, if any, all out
of proportion to their ability to either confirm or deny theosophy, could also
be interpreted as a personal attack on the writers or as having other ulterior
motives.

So, It's amazing how your tone has changed since you first started criticizing
HPB and personally flamed me and Dallas for calling you out on your presenting
of organized Buddhism as having more valid esoteric knowledge than HPB.

So, whatever your criticism of HPB, it has no validity, and smacks to me as
having an ulterior motive, in spite of your twisty disclaimers and defensive
counterattacks--and even more so now, because of them.  Usually its the one
who stands on shaky ground (in a discussion that turns into an argument) who
uses all the tricks of psychologizing and rhetoric to find ways to denigrate
and criticize those who see through such a weak position and its possible
ulterior motives.

Funny how you were pushing Buddhist exotericism and the misinterpretations of
fundamental theosophy in their scriptures just like the Christian
fundamentalists push similarly misinterpreted teachings in the Bible. . . And,
when we disagreed with you, in defense of HPB and the Masters you were
denigrating, twisting it around, by innuendo, to make us out to be the
"fundamentalists."  Ha, Ha,

But, even if you are right about the minor errors you keep harping on, how
would that bring down our house of cards--when you haven't given any real
evidence, logically or otherwise, that you are right?  In fact, I don't think
there are any Buddhist scriptures that can say anything valid about cosmo- and
anthropo-genesis and their scientific and philosophical correlations, along
with their basis in the fundamental principles--all of which are the real
teachings of theosophy.  So, whatever criticism you have of theosophy or HPB
and the Masters based on Buddhist teachings, holds water no better than a
sieve.  In fact, they seem to hold about as much weight in validating your
criticisms (and your implied defamation of HPB and the Masters) as the Bible
and its fundamentalism had when Mary Baker Eddy used it in the same way you
use the canons of exoteric Buddhism (while promoting their ritualized
practices as being both esoteric and theosophically sound).  Where's the
consistency in this?  And, who are the "real" fundamentalists in this
discussion?
>
>I have been a Theosophist for over 30 years, and have
>read and studied a vast amount of material. I am not
>an enemy of Theosophy. I belong to two TSs and have
>respect for their respective viewpoints and emphases.
>I would love for anyone who disagrees with anything I
>write to just say so and explain why in a friendly manner.
>I could be wrong. But to attack with emotional invective
>just makes me think that I must be right.

To say one is a theosophist for more than 30 years, and yet show very little
understanding of the real teachings of theosophy in these discussions that pit
Buddhist exotericism against HPB and pure theosophy, is nothing but self-
serving hubristic "big talk".   The last statement, along with the rest of
this foolish self defensive babble, is pure nonsense and also a typical trick
of rhetoric, since it has no logical basis, and is designed to hoodwink
onlookers into believing the one who is on the wrong side of the discussion
(or should I say, using this forum for the promoting of organized religious
practices) is the injured party, and therefore, must be right (meaning,
correct) in whatever he says.  Who do you think you are fooling?

We still claim that the Book of Djyan takes precedence over all EXOTERIC
Buddhist teachings.  (Not to say that most of these teachings are not
consistent with theosophy, per se, in its practical aspects.)  However,
theosophy, as a synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy can only be
discussed or argued on the basis of its logical consistency or inconsistency.
. .  And, such discussion cannot be dependent upon any scriptural translations
used as contradictions--although they may be presented as confirmations.
Whatever errors HPB may have made on that level has no relationship to the
fundamental teachings of theosophy.  All arguments or discussions leading away
from these teachings, without resort to pure logic or concrete examples, are
entirely non-sequitur for those trying to learn a little more about the
teachings of theosophy and the purpose of it exposition by HPB and the
Masters.

Should you have any valid evidence that there are any errors in the
presentation of theosophical principles and their evolutionary products and
practical conclusions, I would be happy to discuss this with you on any level
of Science, Religion and Philosophy you choose--without resort to any
scriptures (including the Secret Doctrine), rhetoric, unfounded personal
beliefs, or argufying.

As for me, I am a member of no theosophical or other religious, philosophical
or scientific organizations, but I would have been willing to pit my knowledge
of theosophy and its fundamental principles--after my first year of study (50
years ago)--against anyone who said they had 30 years of such study and were
using that to "prove" their wisdom, their knowledge, their "conviction" of its
truths, or their loyalty to the great teachers of it.

LHM