Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00064)

Wednesday, January 10, 2001


Dear Maureen, and others who have inquired into my PROTEST.


Kindly let me say I am no one's enemy. I do not care for the
concept.

But I believe it is only fair to all of us and to those whom I
consider have been attacked, to FIND and lay the FACTS out for
all to see, and thus enable them to make their own judgments
thereon. Half a proposition, unless fully supported , is what I
object to. I propose that we focus on what is whole, shows both
sides and is available and valuable to all.


I ask simply that one-sided attacks on Personages who are now
unable to respond , be refrained from.

Instead of fault-seeking and fault-finding why not spend energy
on verification of what has been offered: THEOSOPHY ? Is
Theosophy wrong in concept, in motive, in doctrine and in
history?

One-sided attacks to which it may be presumed no answer can be
made by the party/parties attacked, is hardly fair in any era I
can think of.

Let the actual balance of pros and cons be offered. What strikes
me as strange is the search and the publication of unproven
gossip about personalities, and not the verification of a
Philosophy. It seems to me to be a deliberate diverting of
study, investigation and opinion away from a study of ongoing
value (Theosophy) to a consideration of the nature of the
character of one or several, who in the period 1875-1891, worked
to see that it became public -- and open for individuals to
study. I wonder why that should be so? Is the philosophy of
Theosophy right or wrong? Should we continue to work with it or
disprove it? What has OUR own study so far revealed?

This enables readers to start with a more complete picture. I
have tried to point to this deficiency. Mr. Daniel Caldwell
has already gone thoroughly into the matter and published
excellent and comprehensive reviews of it. The book: "THE
THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT: 1875-1950" gives an even broader base. I
can only say that I have verified as many of the facts, and
documents, as have so far come to my attention -- and that is
most of them so far advanced. I write and speak from that point
of view. I have also given my sources, so all who are interested
can also verify them.


Of Mr. Johnson, I asked (and ask) for facts. From my own
research he appears to have none that are have much, if any,
validity. I have told him this long ago after his book was first
published, in 1994. [ In my recent protest I made an error
saying it was published in "1944."]


All I say is that with a very intimate knowledge of India and its
people; and having the advantage of a span of some 35+ years of
actual residence in India; and also, and having a very deep and
respectful interest in THEOSOPHY; and an equally deep respect
for HPB and the MASTERS OF WISDOM, I have not found Mr. Johnson's
writings relevant, or congruent with facts known in the Punjab
and elsewhere in the official archives or in other archives
publicly available. However, since I might also be wrong in my
surmises, when his book was published (and I read it), I asked
him to advance them (his facts), and I am still waiting for a
satisfactory answer that would serve to reconcile the differences
I have observed in his writings..


There is no reason why you (or anyone else so deeply interested),
not also go to India and trace down what is claimed by him. View
the documents in the British Museum, and in India which relate to
this subject. Probe the historical literature in Theosophical
Society archives, and elsewhere, which are relevant to these
matters. The papers relative to the matter of Theosophy
(1880-1891), and relating to H.P.B. and Col. Olcott's residence
and work in India, Europe and England are in the official
Government archives of those days, and can be viewed.


I have lived in India for over 35 years. I was educated there
and have many friends there. I have carefully looked into
matters such as these (at first hand) over a long period, since I
was a youth. I recognize that my "say-so" is no more valid than
Mr. Johnson's (to a third party) and, unless others,
independently research the matter he has advanced, it remains
unsettled and a matter of opinions which flit in and out, and are
themselves quite unsubstantial. Third party opinions are and
will remain only that: opinions -- until some additional
research and evidence is uncovered and made public.


I do object most strenuously on moral grounds, to the dragging of
the names and reputations of the MASTERS and H.P.B. in the mud of
public and uninformed sensationalism. Therefore I considered it
my duty to offer the PROTEST I make and made. Let me be clear:
It is on behalf of those individuals who either cannot or will
not defend themselves publicly.

As for THEOSOPHY, one need only study it as a whole, completely
and impartially, to verify its value.

As I see it, it is a history of our Earth and its evolution, not
produced as a speculation or an hypothesis, but it is derived
from the direct OBSERVATION of those who have participated in all
aspects of that research and development -- ourselves as immortal
Intelligences -- if we accept the possibility of personal
IMMORTALITY, and of the general and progressive evolution of all
beings living in NATURE (the Universe).

The consideration of the philosophical and logical basis for the
Theosophical philosophy is germane to my PROTEST. The totality
of all evolution -- every being -- an immortal intelligence, ever
growing in self-consciousness, living under the universal and
impartial LAW of KARMA in many FORMS on Earth (reincarnation),
and the UNIFYING CAUSE of final and individual PERFECTIBILITY in
WISDOM coupled with the continuous practice of BROTHERHOOD, are
the qualifying distinctions of the practice of Theosophy. [ see
KEY TO THEOSOPHY p. 231 Original Edition ].

"Nature" (our Earth as a part of the UNIVERSAL TOTALITY)
contains all, and is the on-going field of investigation and
research of every department of modern Science, philosophy,
religion and psychology. Theosophy (as I study it) has so far
shown itself to be their base. It is eclectic and unites them
all into one.


A PROTEST is not an attack, but is a request for independent
investigation. It says that there are different views and
opinions. It asks for "equal time," and, or the producing of
evidence that supports an allegation. Let the individual(s) who
advance such, provide it. I have provided a public source for
the documentary base that is available to all of us.


I do draw attention to the living proofs enshrined in THEOSOPHY.
Those who have studied them are able to determine the validity
(or otherwise) of those doctrines and statements.

It is clear that I am a protagonist for THEOSOPHY and show a very
deep respect for THOSE who brought it to us to read, study and
apply (if we are convinced it is useful and valid). The
important thing is that THEOSOPHY and its doctrines ought to be
looked into most carefully with a view to finding out if there is
any truth there. Opinions which do not embody at least a modicum
of research will of course be vapory.


I hope this is of some value in clearing the air and my personal
motives in protesting.


Best wishes,


Dallas TenBroeck

=============================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Maureen Fitzgerald [mailto:hymntothesilence@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:39 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Re: Enemies and what to do about them

> Folks, Dallas has forwarded, without my permission, my recent
response to
> his attack here to theos-world, where one of the subscribers
(not the
> first of many, I hope!) took it upon himself to send me a
fairly lengthy
> piece of hate mail just now received. Were I to observe the
same ethical
> standards as Dallas, I'd forward it so the author, Jerome
Wheeler, might
> be trashed behind his back here by liberals the way I'm
probably being
> trashed now on theos-world by fundamentalists.

I've heard it said that once you post on the internet, anyone can
do what
they want with your words. That is ridiculous. We post to a
particular
audience. We send our message as we intend it. The very least
someone
could do is request permission to post elsewhere. Is that too
much to
ask?

> Jim Rodak is right, it's my choice how to respond to all this.
But how
> many choices are there really?


> 4. Ignore them.
> This is probably the most appropriate given the actual
significance of
> such persons in the overall scheme of things. They're a
fanatical
> minority whose opinions carry weight only within the charmed
circle of
> their fellow believers. Why bother?

Exactly. Why bother? You can't argue with a sick mind.

> Any other options to consider are hereby solicited.
>
> PJ

There are probably a lot of people (like me) who benefit from
what you
write, but do not have time to more actively participate or
respond.
Carry on, and good luck.

Maureen

---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-13148L@list.vnet.net