Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tt00069)

Dear David,

Anything that we do not know directly for ourselves is second hand. And even
what we do 'know' is open to interpretation and is only ever one side of the
matter.  In Occult matters this is even more the case.  Our motives, self
interest and alliegences with others greatly influence what we 'see' and how
we recall events.  When it comes to issues of leadership, 'special status'
and power and in organisations  these factors are even more important to
bear in mind.  That something is written in a book or a letter in no way
alters this and in no way bestows any special authority on that person's
words than if they told it to us over a lunchtime coffee.

Surely political events over the last few years alone have taught us that
things are never as they seem, and that reported statements, involving
numbers of people, sometimes even 'on oath', may turn out to be totally
false at a later date.  We have also seen that the so called 'seekers after
truth', who profess the unselfish desire *only to get at the facts*, can
just as often turn out to have a personal agenda of their own - to pull down
the other person / group.  Ruining others through exposing their weakness
seems to be a common currency in the modern age.

You ask where are the rumours and slurs on other peoples characters in your
posts.  To this I have already replied in a previous post which I include
below in case you missed it.  I do not have a sense of indignation over
anything you have written. But, as a theosophist, I do have a concern about
where it is all leading.  For, as said, the major theme of your posts (see
my earlier response below) revolves around casting doubt on the integrity of
Theosophy and its leaders.  Only a few of these posts are from the book you
mention, by the way.

You wish to be taken as a serious researcher into theosophical matters yet
your series of posts to Tony,  which contained nothing but mockery and
taunting of another theosophist for his views, do you no credit at all in
this respect (see "Mahatmas" - 25 Jan 99:"Koothoomi unveiled" x 3 - 3 Feb
99).

You ask members of this group to give you detailed information - about
themselves, other theosophists (past & present) and their organisation, in
order to confirm reports, rumours that you receive from your many un-named
sources.  Yet while your research dissertation is to explore the motives,
actions and integrity of others you are far less forthcoming in giving out
any information about yourself.  Indeed, when asked for information, your
response (to my post 24th Feb) was to express indignation that your own
motives where being questioned.  Even though I replied, you still did not
answer any of the questions put to you, just as you did not you reply to
MKR's question about your research back in January.

In my profession, I regularly receive requests for help or information from
students and other professionals who are carrying out research.  In every
case they offer, *without asking*, information about themselves, their
background, their research aims, their interest in the topic, the
Institution for which the research is being carried out, the level of the
research project (eg Masters, PhD) and so on.  Along with this there is
usually a statement about confidentiality.  There is nothing exceptional
about any of this.  It is simply in line with the professional and ethical
codes for carrying out research.  It only becomes exceptional when people
are digging into the personal lives of others but are reluctant to give any
information about themselves and how they intend to *use* that information.

Even when asked, what have you told us of yourself and your research
dissertation apart from that it is about W Q Judge?  To the questions put to
you from the above paragraph you have still offered no reply. I also asked
"are you seeking to validate or denigrate theosophy and its leaders?"
Again, no reply.  In my earlier post I wrote:

> So I am naturally wondering how you see the Teachings of Theosophy, its
students, Madame Blavatsky, Judge & so on, and how this will inform your
research.  Of course, you are entitled to whatver views you hold, and yes,
we do need to explore the facts (so called), and yes again, there is no
religion higher than truth.   It's the regular theme of aspersion and
mockery based on second hand reports that weave in and out of your posts
that I am queerying.  Are there any examples of noble qualities, accounts of
honesty and integrity, validations of Theosophy, of HPB, Judge and others
that you are seeking to substantiate through your research?<

Given that this *is* a Theosophical Group and you are researching
theosophical matters the above are very relevant questions to ask.  But
still, you offer no reply to the specific questions therein.

You write:

> If you or Mr Richard Taylor or Mr Dallas TenBroeck are really
> interested in facts, historical truth-----why haven't one of
> you set record straight?  No, you question my motivations
> & Mr. Taylor & Mr TenBroeck remain silent.  & this silence
> is from Mr Taylor who prides himself in being scholar
> ready to ferret out facts however uncomfortable truth may
> turn out to be.

David, what is so special about your motivations that you feel we mustn't
ask you what is behind your research?  I am not an associate of ULT, nor am
I 'follower' of Judge, Crosbie, Tingley and others.  In fact I have no
information about historical matters that is worthy to give or to withold in
a group like this.   Members of this group only know you through the posts
you have made to it.   So, even if they have it to give, why should people
give you information when, as yet, they don't know whether you intend to do
a servive or a dis-service to the cause of Theosophy - of which many of the
people in this group are dedicated students.

But let's leave other people out of it for the moment and focus only on our
posts to each other.  Given the number of unanswered questions I have put to
you,  the only person who appears to be reluctant to give out some facts and
set the record straight is yourself.

As for me, I am a very imperfect student of HPB and the Masters.  Any thing
that you wish to know of my understanding of the Teachings (as opposed to
personalities) I would be happy to pass on.  In my 30+ years of studying
their work I have found there is a fount of knowledge therein which speaks
to my soul of the highest truths and points to a spiritual path along which
I struggle at the rear and try to make some little progress.  My own small
endeavours have left me with a sense of profound respect and loyalty to
those that have gone before me and whom have made it possible for myself and
others to have that opportunity to "TRY".

I also recognise that many of those ahead of me are not perfect, sometimes
they fail (seemingly) in their attempts to clear the way for others.   But I
also remember what a dear friend and fellow traveller pointed out to me many
years ago:

"Great individuals make great mistakes."

And I have since come to appreciate that exceptional people on the
'spiritual path' often have exceptional burdens to carry and trials to face.

If you research project is to shed some more light on the noble efforts of
such individuals and the Path they tread then I for one would be willing to
support you where I can.  So please say more.

Best wishes,  PETER


*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

Copy of my post to you Dated 25th February 1999

Peter wrote:

I'm making an observation, not an accusation, along with a desire to know
more about your views and how you are going to use your research.   I
appreciate that in your posts you are passing on the views of others which
may not be your own.  It's just that the theme that binds them all together
is one of casting aspersion on, if not mocking, the character of others.

The posts I have in mind are:

1.  Your series of posts on the themes of Judge Communicates with dead
Blavatsky and Kingsley Channels dead Judge and culminating in quotes casting
doubt on the integrity and character of both Judge and Kingsly.  For
example,  Judge is a deluded leader, a guileless psychic:  Mrs Tingley at
best self deluded, at worst a charlaton.

2.  The post on 'Judge is Rajah' followed up by Pryse's mockery of Judge as
being ridiculous.

3.  The R.A. Gilbert post asserting that devestating attacks on the Mahatma
Letters and the objectivity of Lillie and his attacks on the Mahatma Letters
have yet to be responded to.

4.  The Post on Fictitious Tibet & Madame Blavatsky, a "pique" of mockery on
Theosophy and its founders, wherein it accused:
- Madame Blavatsky of being a phoney and self deluded fraud
- The Secret Doctrine as being "horrendous hogwash"
- The Esoteric Schools and Brotherhood as being a pure fiction
- The Masters of being a silly fiction of HPB's imagination
.. and casted Madame Blavatsky in the same light as the "aggressive
homsosexual" Leadbeater and Lobsang Rampa.

(Actually it was interesting that the writer of that article stated Henry
Olcott to be genuine and HPB to be a fraud, especially as both professed to
have the same Master and follow the same esoteric tradition.  Olcott also
testified to meeting both the Master M & Master KH in the flesh, as did
Damador, Brown (who met KH) and others.  Either this didn't seem worth
mentioning as it didn't support the author's views or our anthropological
author didn't research very deeply into the  subject matter he professed to
know so much about.)

5.   With your latest posts:

> Does anyone know who these 7 trustees are?
> They are not elected by ULT associates.
> This board is the power behind the ULT,
> Los Angeles & is accountable to no one
> especially to the rank & file ULT associates,
> a former ULTite tells me.

To ask who runs ULT and how they are elected is a simple question deserving
of a straight forward answer. But the way you put it came across to me as
more on the same theme - another round of reported rumour, allegation and
aspersion.

I imagine it may have come across to Rich in the same way.  Hence his last
words to you in his reply:

> This will get you farther than allegations posted to a public forum.<

6.  All your posts above are qoutes from 'sources' with virtually no views
of your own attached.  In order to discover something about the latter I
glanced back to see what other posts you had made over the last few months.
The only ones I could find were your dialogues with Tony (re: Koothoomi
Unveiled) which contained yet another round of mocking a theosphist for his
views.

So I am naturally wondering how you see the Teachings of Theosophy, its
students, Madame Blavatsky, Judge & so on, and how this will inform your
research.  Of course, you are entitled to whatver views you hold, and yes,
we do need to explore the facts (so called), and yes again, there is no
religion higher than truth.   It's the regular theme of aspersion and
mockery based on second hand reports that weave in and out of your posts
that I am queerying.  Are there any examples of noble qualities, accounts of
honesty and integrity, validations of Theosophy, of HPB, Judge and others
that you are seeking to substantiate through your research?

Regards

Peter
















-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.