--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 6/13/99 5:58:32 PM, davidgreen@hotmail.com writes:
>> From: "Frank Reitemeyer" <ringding@blinx.de>
>> At first: For me it is Mr Gilbert who lies and not Mrs Blavatsky.
> What are Mr Gilbert's lies in his article on Mrs Blavatsky in Tibet?
> Details?
> David (aka LSOS)
Since you are the one who professes to KNOW Gilbert is telling the truth, why
not first tell us how you are so sure of what his motives are, and, before
asking us to "detail" his lies, show us the "proofs" of his assertions. (Not
only about Tibet, but everything else he and your anonymous "theosophical"
letter writer, supposedly confirming Gilbert, tells you about "Blavatsky's
lies".)
Only fools believe what they read without any study or proof of the validity
of the writers statements. Second hand opinions, based on the unproved
assertions of others, carry no weight with intelligent and thoughtful
people--as I assume all "real" and "true" theosophists are. I take it now,
that since you can't "believe anything HPB says", that you are not a "real"
and "true" student of theosophy, as you formerly implied.
Your naive acceptance of all this negative second hand information, with a
studied disregard of any countering positive information, is a good sign that
your so called "research" on theosophical leaders is flawed and may have an
ulterior motive. Criticism, as Theosophy points out, may be a sure sign that
the one who criticizes may suffer from the same faults he points out in
others. Let the readers beware.
Blavatsky's and the Master's experience and teachings speak for themselves,
and no "personal" aspersions have any relationship to the truthfulness or
validity of their teachings or their writings. No claims were made by HPB,
and the acceptance or rejection of the theosophical teachings is left up to
the individual students themselves--as she so clearly pointed out.
Both you and Gilbert (as well as your confirming "letter writer" of "98 lies"
of HPB) who accept the critical blathering of others without credible
foundation, other than personal opinions and questionable documents, are
apparently birds of a feather--since you all seem to be only interested in
exposing HPB's, WQJ's and RC's foibles and their so called "lies" (as well as
downgrading the theosophical movement as a whole)--by presenting unproved and
second hand information--some culled from other ENEMIES of both HPB and the
Movement. Can we assume, therefore, that you are just one of their stooges?
Or, is it, their "dupes"?
If your assumptions about theosophy and their leaders are valid, based on
your personal opinions and the information you provide on your web site, we
might as well believe the findings of the British Psychical Society's
original report on the "frauds" of HPB (later fully retracted by the same
society, as being similarly "biased" and "unfounded.")
Incidentally, as an associate of The Uniworld Artisans Foundation and Guild,
I noticed you placed a mirror link on your site to a copyright web page
without permission (referring to articles about HPB and Alice
Bailey--reprinted by permission). Accordingly, I feel justified in requesting
a link to your site on a new web site (also cross linked to the Uniworld
Artisans Guild) dealing with "The History of Synthesis of Science, Religion
and Philosophy," with particular emphasis on "Fraudulent or Biased
Contradictory Research"--including exposing the similar actions of the
Jesuits and the Dugpas (along with their "apologists," "dupes," and "plants")
in their futile attempts to discredit theosophy as well as its teachers.
Now, it appears that their derogatory mission has been taken over by others
who also need "exposing" in public.
Discussing these "opinions" privately among ourselves is one thing, but
postings of sham "research" with an obvious ulterior motive to a "public" web
site is quite another. So, now, after your first move to go public with your
personal attacks on theosophical teachers supported by nothing but hearsay
and personal opinions, let the readers decide for themselves, and the chips
fall where they may.
> I was shocked to find Mrs Blavatsky lied about trip to Tibet. Mr
> Gilbert's study proves her unreliability.
I'm more shocked at your gullibility. If that's your idea of "proof", I
wonder if all your other supposed "proofs" about your opinions of theosophy
and its teachers is equally as valid? I also wonder who the "liars" really
are in this "study". As theosophy points out, those who criticise may suffer
from the same faults they allegedly point out in others.
> This week a theosophical writer has forwarded to me paper listing 98 lies
> by Mrs Blavatsky!!!!! Who can believe anything this woman writes. I'm
hoping
> he'll publish article. I'm more convinced now of Dr Carlson's portrait of
> Mrs Blavatsky.
And you of course, believe everything you read--so long as it denigrates
theosophy and its teachers. or is biased in accord with your own distorted
beliefs... Right? Wake up and smell the coffee, David... You're way out of
your league. If I was your professor grading you on your research report and
conclusions, you would flunk the course.
LHM
P.S. Portions of this letter may be posted on the HPB vs. AB web pages along
with a notice that any documents referentially associated with the page's
mirroring on another web site may be inauthentic, biased, or unverified
information.
---------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
