Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00269)

Last week, Dallas wrote,

<<As to the defense of HPB.  I am of the vigorous opinion that we, her few
friends, and scattered students, ought to feel stung every time some ill-
advised and inadequate criticism is publicly leveled at her (and Karmically it
comes to our personal attention). >>

This week, Dallas wrote,

<<After all, HPB and the Mahatmas did not write for the benefit of
Orientalists, Philologists, or the Academics.  They wrote for the general
benefit of mankind....If one carefully goes through the S D and takes note of
the many corrections which HPB has (and her co-authors, the Masters of Wisdom)
made to wild and uninformed speculations - as Orientalists  are usually
unaware of esotericism - one will find that a whole new dimension arises.  And
that I consider to be valuable.... I think if that is done the problems of
literal word derivations and transcription will vanish>>

Dallas,

Again, we are talking at cross-purposes, and important points are being
ducked.  NO ONE is arguing that academics are superior to the inner truths
which HPB has brought before our consideration.  But you are RIGHT that time
is being wasted.  The time is being wasted here because you refuse to admit a
simple point, that the word Devachan is misidentified and mistranslated in the
Glossary, which is ascribed to HPB.  Previously, you have taken any criticism
of the Glossary as a criticism of HPB, and indeed, that book bears her name
and no other.  Now, you haven't bothered to defend HPB at all.  And your
responses this week are an important object-lesson in Theosophical studies
today.

You have asked repeatedly that anyone who has a criticism to make, should
bring PRIMARY proof for the consideration of the entire list.  You asked for
titles and sources.  These I have provided.  Now, you studiously ignore the
matter and try repeatedly -- daily -- to change the subject.  This is rather
disingenuous.

You might have chosen to ignore my Devachan post altogether, but instead you
write daily asking us to change the subject, to return to the inner meaning.
But there would be no discussion of "Eye Doctrine" if we all agreed, "Yes,
Devachan is an error in the Glossary.  It should be fixed."  You ask also that
we should discuss reincarnation and its "Heart Doctrine."  No argument here,
that would be great.  But that would still not adress the question of
criticisms and PROOFS, which you yourself raised and now refuse to discuss.

Perhaps you mistake my intention.  I don't wish to spend days and days
discussing the derivation of a single word from Tibetan.  This is quite
boring, and I am the first to admit it.  Rather, I announced my intention in a
post last week called "Obstructionism."  Next, I carefully chose an iron-clad
case, knowing that nevertheless, there would be concerted attempts to prevent
any and all discussion of it.  This was my sole point with the Devachan post
-- to demonstrate the obstructionism in Theosophical circles.  This
obstructionism attempts to prevent substantive discussion of Theosophical
teachings which might be critical.  This obstructionism, Dallas, you
demonstrate with every post, AND THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT.  By all means,
reply again, and point everyone to the "Heart Doctrine" of the *meaning* of
the word Devachan.  This will merely give another opportunity to see that,
once again, the issue is being avoided, that Theosophical works **do indeed**
make errors, and there is proof.

I think list members should decide if we've had enough of this demonstration.
If people are interested in seeing more obstructionism at work, the discussion
could certainly continue.  Perhaps next week, we should discuss even more
serious errors, and examine Chohan, Dangma, Dzyan, Fohat, Lanoo and so many
others --  ???

Rich