Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00373)

December 18, 2001

Re: THEOSOPHY (as a philosophy) and Mme. Blavatsky as
its "Messenger."


Dear Steve:

I have read your response. I PROTEST it.

I believe you are mistaken. here are my reasons:

1. Without any apparent understanding of the philosophy of
THEOSOPHY (which in application, prohibits any of the excesses
you write of as characteristics of Mme. Blavatsky's life) you
seem to have chosen to repeat unfounded, malicious slanders and
calumnies concerning the life and moral standing of H P B.

But, from what you write, you appear to know little of her life.
Further, you do not appear to be very cognizant concerning the
philosophy of Theosophy. On what basis, then, do you write? Why
do you adhere to this list ?

2. I ask myself what has she ever done to (or for you), to
deserve that kind of treatment from you?

3. If you cannot agree she is ALIVE (now and today) in
SPIRIT, then would you not concede that her writings, and the
existence of THEOSOPHY as a philosophy, has a continued life?

As I have studied her life and work I see that to be true to the
standards of moral life implicit in the philosophy she taught,
her personal life had to conform to the strictest of those
standards.

All her closest companions and co-workers agree to that. Is
their testimony and voice to be denied and not considered? What
are the standards of fairness you apply ? Do you, when you quote
the names of other, or earlier writers, give "chapter and verse
?" Do you give the reader any chance to verify the accuracy of
what you write? Do you comment on disparities and on opposing
views, as, for instance, I have ? What is your motive ?

4. I have protested the lack of any REAL EVIDENCE -- and the
DENIAL TO HER OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF RESPONSE -- to that which
has been published to the detriment of her character after her
physical death.

I have also quoted "chapter and verse" or, I have asked for them
to be quoted.

Let all readers see everything and make up their own minds.

Let us also understand precisely why it is necessary to bring all
this up now -- which has nothing to do with the philosophy of
THEOSOPHY -- to the public forum. What is the motive behind
this?

As I said, it is persons like me, who respect and admire her work
and conduct, who now, in the present, have to do that for her.
Anything less is a concession to those who would gain notoriety
by vilifying her. And I repeat they are deliberately taking
advantage of her absence (not being physically present) to do
this. I call it cowardly.

5. Since you do not respond, I conclude you have nothing
further to offer. You do not support or substantiate your
ill-favored and demeaning statements concerning her life. My
should any one believe ?

6. As far as I can discern, the attack made on her by you
(and others) is slanderous (in my esteem), and deserves to be
exposed for that reason. Any one, with a vestige of moral
sensitivity would react in this way to hearing or reading
statements that are wholly one-sided and unbalanced. They ask:
Why is the "other side" concealed ?

7. In my esteem, all writers ought to be most careful
concerning the way in which the characterize the life and work of
those who are dead.

If one believes after study that there is nobility and verity in
the teachings and philosophical propositions of Theosophy, then
why is it necessary to attempt to discredit them? They are
either defensible or not on their own merits.

Let THEOSOPHY offer the standard for all to study and discern
independently as to its value. None of us were alive when she
was. All we an offer is opinions upon others' conjectures. A
very shakily foundation for opinions, I would say.

Slander and unverifiable allegations serve only to degrade those
who perpetuate or repeat unfounded rumors.

In this case I would say: They are evidently taking advantage of
the absence of the victim. This is basically unfair and unjust
for any one to be so treated. It is to this standard that I
appeal. I PROTEST your, or any one else, taking such an unfair
advantage.

Dallas

--------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Stubbs [mailto:stevestubbs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 5:32 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Did Blavatsky smoke hashish and drink alcohol?

Well, here we have another seminar in disingenuous
argument.

For the nth time Dallas brings out his
beloved "dead woman" argument, which says that nobody
can study the life of someone who is dead. The
standard is of course applied very selectively. He
does not apply it to himself, or to Sylvia Cranston,
or to others. He only applies it to those to whom he
wishes to apply it.

But in the same post he says that
the dead woman in question is not dead but alive. (!)
If she is alive and not dead, then it would appear we
are not constrained by the "dead woman" argument from
studying her life. Or does he want to have it both
ways?

Then there is a lot of irrelevant stuff about
reincarnation, and comments on badly written novels
mentioning Jesus. This is the irrelevance technique
we discussed earlier. Use as much irrelevant material
as possible to confuse the issue.

CUT