Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00295)

In a message dated 1/21/99 4:17:52 PM, schuelergerald@optec-hq.optec.army.mil
writes:

>>>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.

True.  But what has that got to do with the perfection of the principles of
theosophy and their scientific, philosophical, and ethical correlations she
teaches?

><<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.

What's wrong with that?  Maybe, then, we could arrive at a consensus of what
the truths of theosophy really are and what they mean to both individual and
group attainment of Self realization, and the achievement of universal
brotherhood... And, perhaps, some of you "promoters" and "critics" of
inconsequential matters like Buddhist practices and word definitions, could
gain some real understanding and "conviction" of theosophical principles and
their derivative consequences.
>
><<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.

Well, it's about time.  But, I see that you still insist on carrying out this
pointless personal sparring.  I guess I really must have struck a chord of
suppressed emotion when I parried your first unsolicited thrust at me the
first time I interrupted your dialogue about Tibetan Buddhism being valid as a
reference source in contradicting theosophy and discrediting HPB.  Since when
are quotes from Buddhist scriptures any "authority" in confirmming or denying
theosophical teachings?  To me "proof" is logical argument or experimentation
that either confirms or falsifies a proposition.  All your quotes were
apparently used, as I saw it, as an attempt to discredit HPB as a teacher of
theosophy, and to defend Dugpa practices--and therefore, having no
relationship to theosophy, were immaterial to its study which I thought was
the purpose of this online theosophical discussion group.  Of course, if you
want to study or proselytize Buddhism because you have, as you said, no
conviction about theosophy, why don't you go to a Buddhist online forum where
you'll find plenty of friendly company?

First you deny, then you admit you did "call me out."  And then, you go back
to your old tricks of reverse psychologizing and claim I'm the one with the
emotional high.  Come off it, man.  I'm the one who originally said I had no
problem "calling a spade a spade--and, if the shoe fits, wear it".  Maybe you
forgot the nasty (I could also call it "flaming", but that's too soft a word)
way you "called me out", and "put me down"--when all I did was question your
proselytizing of Buddhism and your claims that it's exoteric teachings and
practices have anything to do with theosophy, or that HPB's minor mistakes of
language or definitions had any relevance in questioning her credibility as a
teacher of theosophy.  In addition, my claim that--with all your pontificating
about your vast knowledge of Theosophy and Buddhism--you didn't understand the
real meaning and usage of the word "karmamudra" must have ticked you off.
Your first response to this was so out of line with personal vindictive that
several others had to come to my defense.  So, please don't say I'm the one
who started this argufying.
>
><<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.

I don't have to, since you, with reliance on your vast knowledge of orthodox
psychological "authorities", already did it for me.  Besides, I'm not the one
who criticized HPB In the first place... And, once again, could this typical
personal response to any of my observations, speculations or question, be a
demonstration of the way you twist things around (as I speculated above) to
avoid giving an answer directly pertinent to the question?  How many more
times will you continue to take this tack?  Let's wait and see. .
>
><< 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.

As you have the right to accusatively misinterpret the words--"seeing through
such a weak position" (meaning weak argument)--as meaning, seeing through a
person.  Or, don't you really read the sentences that you are responding to?
If not, then I apologize if it appears I've implied that your continual
misinterpretations of what I and other "convinced" theosophists say, is
intentional.

><<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.

I guess you got the joke.:-)

I wonder if I've convinced you (a bit more than you said you are convinced
about anything else) that as long as you keep on throwing up smoky mirrors of
others you'll continue to get back reflections of yourself.  This kind of
sparring could be my idea of fun--under different circumstances...  But,
seriously, I'd like to get back to discussing the deeper meanings of theosophy
and its correlation with science, philosophy and religion (in that order) in
this forum.  I really have enough letters to answer in all my other, more
restrained scientific, philosophical and religious forums.  So, if you want to
discuss these "side issue" (to theosophy, that is) matters, meet me over in
Psyche-D, Quantum-Mind, Evolution, JCS-Online, Buddhism, or Kabbala forums.
Over there, among specialist experts, I'm willing to listen and ask pertinent
questions.

In any event, it could be I am wrong about your intent and your
wisdom--possibly because our writing styles are so opposite and mutually
misleading.:~)  If so, and in the interest of peace, I aplogize for any
negativities you may have misinterpreted as being directed to you, personally.

In the meantime, let's get back to discussing theosophy without all these
gratuitous side tracks and side issues getting in the way.

LHM
>