Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00133)

I have received a critical response to my comments on the DES within the 
ULT; it was sent to me personally so I do not reproduce it here. However 
it includes and assertion that (I suspect this may be an inevitable 
problem of the historian versus the believer) "Some of it is right on, 
some of it is ludicrously incorrect". Although commonplace in 
Theosophical responses to historical work, such a statement is 
meaningless. History proceeds on the basis of evidence. I am more than 
happy, in this matter as in all my historical writings, to correct 
errors, make changes substantiated by evidence and add material where 
documentary support warrants it. To say "some of it is ludicrously 
incorrect" without specifying that the "some is" and on what basis it is 
said that it is "incorrect" (ludicrously or otherwise) is essentially the 
method of response all secret societies make to outside commentators. 
Thus, Freemasons assert that various books claiming to reveal their 
secrets are "inaccurate" but fail to identify in specific terms what is 
inaccurate. My statements about the DES come directly from DES documents 
in my collection, or in other collections to which I have had access. I 
am happy to correct errors if my critic will identify them and provide 
sources to show the error. I must note that his approach is precisely 
that given by, inter alia, John Algeo of the Adyar TS to a paper I gave 
at a conference in the USA giving an account of the ER within that TS. It 
was "full of errors". What were the errors? There were many of them. Yes, 
but what are they? Well, there are lots of them ..... and on and on and 
on. I would also note that the Adyar reaction to my biography of 
Leadbeater was identical. It's full of errors. What are they? Well, 
errors.... and so it goes. I am very much amused by the fact that a 
couple of real historical errors in that work were never picked up by the 
Adyar critics!
Either organizations are upfront, honest and open in their criticisms of 
scholarly commentary, or they must accept that scholars will publish what 
they have and reject vague and unsubstantiated criticisms for what they 
are: statements of faith (neither more or less scholarly than assertions 
by Roman Catholics, Marxists or Scientologists in response to scholarly 
commentary on the history of their traditions) and the preservation of 
secrecy rather than the legitimate scholarly correction of error.

Dr Gregory Tillett