Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00298)

This letter certainly proves who the "obstructionist" of serious theosophical
discussion really is.  Why you keep harping on the horrendous" problem of
these minor philological errors in the Glossary and that they have some
relationship to the meaning and practice of theosophy is beyond my
comprehension.  Now you even threaten to harangue us with all the other
Tibetan words you want to show us that you know better than HPB.  And for what
apparent reason?   Beats me.  Unless you haven't grown up yet and need someone
to pay attention to you.

In a message dated 1/23/99 9:54:48 PM, Richtay@aol.com writes:

>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.

So what if we admitted it?  How are we to change it?  And what difference
would it make if we could?  Apparently, your harping on this criticism of the
glossary as being important in a theosophical study--that uses those words as
they were given with satisfactory results--appears to be nothing but
obstructionism, and the motive may very well be to discredit HPB.  The more
you keep on wrongly insisting that philological or linguistic interpretations
have anything to do with the credibility of the teachings or the teachers, the
more we may assume you have an ulterior motive.  Whether it is to discredit
theosophy or to proselytize Buddhism is a moot question?
>
>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.

Okay, so you brought the "proof."  But, so what?  What does it prove?  So, HPB
coined her own words in a language she claimed was impossible to write about
esoteric metaphysical subjects.  Nobody is trying to change the subject.  It's
you that have changed the subject of this theosophical study forum into a
study of Buddhism, Tibetan language. Tantric black magic and exoteric
religious practices.  Therefore, It's you that's changing the subject, and all
Dallas and I am trying to do is bring it back where it belongs.
>
>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.

Again, so what?  Go change your glossary, and stop haranguing us with all this
nonsense about the meaning of words having anything to do with scientific or
philosophical principles of theosophy.  You are dead wrong in accusing Dallas
of obstructionism, when you are the one obstructing a friendly discussion with
the real purpose of better understanding theosophy.  When did you bring a
subject of "a theosophical teaching that might be critical"?   Critical of
what?  From your arguments so far, all I can see is what you are doing is
being critical of HPB, the Masters, and THEOSOPHY.  Could you name a teaching
that the philology of the word Devachan, as used by HPB would have any
"critical" relevance to?

I'm perfectly satisfied with the meaning she gave to it, since it describes a
logical place in the after death states related to my study of the scientific
basis of ALL alternate states of consciousness, and the coenergetic field
relationships they have implied by an expansion of the formulas given in the
Book of Djyan in conjunction with the fundamental principles.  But, then, you
apparently have no interest in discussing those "critically important"
matters...  Real theosophical science and philosophy, rather than scholarly
nit picking over words.  But, then who are we to tell you what to study even
if you were a serious theosophist?  But, if it's what you have been giving us,
I, for one, would wish you do it someplace else.

>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 --  ???

Thanks.  That's all we need.  Your attempt to turn this forum into a
philological study group and Buddhist temple with the obstructionism of
serious theosophical study, so far, would make HPB come out of her urn (if she
hasn't already.:-)  To call Dallas the obstructionist is the height of irony.

LHM