Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00246)

>>Finding errors that do not refer directly to theosophical ideas could
also be nit picking.  >>

Or it could show that no one, not even HPB, is perfect.


<<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.>>

This is especially interesting to hear from you considering that it was
you who blew this up "out of proportion" in the first place.
Dallas has already stated that he will attack anyone who "dares" to
criticize HPB or a word of her writing.  I guess this means that all
criticsm will vanish from this list now. But it is hard for me to see
how any "discussion" will take place because all we can ever do is to
discuss our interpretations, opinions, and personal conclusions.

<<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.>>

If this is how you interpreted my posts, then you will just have to live
with it. But I never "flamed" anyone. And my tone has not changed at
all. I still call a spade a spade when I see one, and I still will
disagree with you when you post interpretations that I disagree with.
Yes, I suppose I did "call you out" but mostly because you were
insisting on "proofs" (which are impossible) and then ignored all the
quotes that Rich and I did supply. But I have no emotional residue at
all, and I don't think that Dallas does either (we are actually starting
to get along). So when you get over your own emotional high and talk
Theosophy, I intend to join it with my own views.


<<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.>>

Look within yourself and you just may see the answer lurking there.


<< 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.>>

If you see through me, then that is fine. You have a right to see
through anyone you want to.


<<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. . .  Ha, Ha, >>

I am still laughing too.

Jerry S.