Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00069)

Dear Dallas,

I want to thank you for your valient and faithful defense of HPB and 
the Masters. We who accept and study the principles of 
Theosophy, and find that they provide us with the way to 
understand the meaning of life, and the tools to learn to live as 
responsible human beings, may find it difficult to realize that others 
do not accept these teachings, and feel they must try to disprove 
them. But we can remember that on the plane of forces, the 
Disintegrator always tries to destroy any accomplishments of 
humanity which lead to Consciousness of the Unity of All Life. We 
can see that those who take it upon themselves to ridicule HPB 
and her work, and worse, to make it seem somehow sinister, are 
only the tools of that destructive force. Humanity is in a crucial 
cycle in its evolution right now. We stand to make some great gains 
in the evolution of consciousness, and therefore these forces of 
destruction work all the harder to try to prevent the realization of 
such gains. But the battle is already won. Darkness cannot prevail. 
Our job is to reflect the inner Light to the best of our ability, and 
your messages in defense of the Great Teachers are strong beams 
of that Light of Truth and Compassion. Usually this is a thankless 
job, given the limitations of the material plane, where all must be 
revealed and brought to manifestation. But please know that there 
are many who recognize the loyalty and devotion that motivates 
such defense, and who support such efforts.

Sincerely,
Adelasie

On 11 Jan 01, at 5:46, dalval14@earthlink.net wrote:

> 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
> 
>