Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00137)

Dear Tillett:

Your message presented me with an opportunity I was waiting for, since I 
prefer public communication whenever possible over private communication on 
matters of public interest.

When I read "The Elder Brother", the bio of Leadbeater, there was one piece 
of information which I was totally unaware (even after my being around TS 
nearly half a century) and is considered extremely sensitive by those who 
are in the know and as such, no one knowledgeable would talk about or make 
any response whatsoever.

When a very rare opportunity arose, I took a photo copy of the page from 
the book and showed it to a person who I thought was privy to first hand 
info. Lo and behold, I was taken aside and in hushed voice the info was 
confirmed to be 100% accurate.

This incident pleased me much as it confirmed the fact that the author took 
trouble to put in print, facts which he took pains to confirm its accuracy 
and my opinion of the integrity of the author went sky high.

So when you see allegation that some info is incorrect, I think those who 
make such allegations have a real responsibility to back up such 
allegations and also need to have courage to come out and identify what 
item is incorrect and why. Facts are facts and cannot hurt anyone 
especially those who claim the "There is no Religion Higher than Truth."

Since I would like full publicity to be given to my response, I am posting 
it to theos-l, the oldest theosophical maillist as well as theos-news.

mkr

Gregory Tillett wrote:

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