Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00323)

In a message dated 1/25/99 5:10:06 AM, blafoun@azstarnet.com writes:

>Please Leon. . . .please discuss a serious Theosophical Subject instead
>of writing your "ad hominem Diatribes" against us awful Nitpickers.

I tried to.   But, your "awful nitpicking" critiques of HPB and the Masters
has so dominated the field for months with tons of Buddhist proselytizing and
philological discussion of Tibetan words and their meanings, as well as their
exoteric religious practices, that it left little room for discussing the
teachings of theosophy (from all its "scientific", "philosophical" and
"ethical" viewpoints) which is my, and I would hope, all other serious
theosophist's primary interest..
>
>You are in effect prolonging the discussion on these so-called Non-
Theosophical
>subjects.  You have spent all evening writing "negative" material and posting
>it on Theos-Talk.  What does all of this writing of yours have to do with
>REAL Theosophy?  to echo your own mantra.

That's an unfounded assertion, since I've managed to state my theosophical
viewpoints in most of my letters.  But I don't see anyone among the group so
interested here in proselytizing Tibetan Buddhism, picking them up for
discussion.  One of the reasons I keep responding to your posts is that I
can't see that all the mass of writings discussing Tibetan Buddhism and its
languages, iconography or Tantric practices have anything to do with the
theosophical teachings, or their purpose in empowering the "Theosophical
Movement" and its purposes.  The other, is that some on this thread (not you
in particular) keep on responding with constantly escalating ad hominem
personal psychologizing that cries out for some sort of response.

The only prolonging I can see is the continued insistence that some of us
serious theosophical students waste our time reading non-theosophical
proselytizing of exoteric religious practices, and answering bickering
responses to our claims that use of these exoteric Tibetan teachings to impugn
HPB's credibility, or confirm or deny theosophy is, in itself, incredible.

To relieve your problem about my "negative (to you, apparently, but positive
to me) material"--from here on, unless a letter is directed to me personally,
mentions my name, contains information I disagree with, or information I wish
to clarify should it fall within my knowledge--you won't find me "prolonging
discussion" on these so-called Non-Theosophical subjects."  (I would hope not
to find you prolonging it either, for that matter.:-)

Actually, for the record, I never said that a discussion of religious
scriptures to clarify or amplify theosophy is "non-theosophical."  But,
philological discussion, with its implied purpose of discrediting HPB or the
Masters certainly falls in the category of nit picking.  Maybe you should
check back and find out who started this "personalized" discussion with
unfounded assertions and accusations against both HPB and her defenders in the
first place.

Best wishes,

Leon