Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00390)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Morten Sufilight" <teosophy@m...> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> This email is a view - and to Paul I will say - I do care Paul - 
and that is also why I answer your email here in the below.

Hi Morten,

Glad that you care about improving communication. Herewith my 
attempt to do the same:

> 
> 1. First to correct a mis-understanding: My reflections where to 
the list - and NOT to Bart as it is highlighted in the below email 
from Paul. Try reading my email, and you will see that. OK ?

You stated your agreement with Peter, in reference to his agreement 
with Bart. I did read your email and I know you were addressing the 
list.
> 
> 2. I understand, your email.
> 
> You seem to asume, that I have a certain opinion in my previous 
posting, which you answer in the below. 
> 
> But Paul, - try reading your own answer in the below, and then you 
will see, that your own view are in conflict with it self.

Perhaps it doesn't improve communication to make such high handed 
pronouncements without any real explanation.

> You defend academic analyzing - without heart,

Certainly not. I defend the people you are attacking when you say 
that, and I don't agree with the charge at all. Academic analysis 
isn't ipso facto heartless.
snip

> 
> Now 'clear awareness of history' - (and that is 'clear') can only 
come through - reading the Akasha as HPB did. 

That's the ultimate Theosophical fundamentalist argument. No amount 
of historical work done by historians using traditional methods can 
ever contradict the pronouncements of those who claim to read the 
Akashic record. How is that different from someone who says that 
clear awareness of history can only come through interpreting the 
Bible as so-and-so did.

Historians don't try to dictate to Theosophists how to theosophize; 
why should Theosophists try to dictate to historians how to research 
and write about history?

> HPB is doing a lot of bashing on the historical scholars of her 
time in the book The Secret Doctrine. Now you come and say to me, 
that what HPB did was wrong ?? Is this what I have to understand ??

Don't know what you're getting at here. You'd have to be specific 
about who was being bashed and on what basis, and then I could judge 
whether she was right or wrong. She made no sweeping condemnations 
of academic historians in general as you make or imply.

> Today - it seems, that academic non-spiritual/non-theosophical 
historical scholars, want to gain territory again - am I right ?

?? What do you mean, gain territory?
How can you refer to academic historical scholars as "non-spiritual" 
simply because they try to avoid imposing their religious beliefs on 
the matter they study?

> And Theosophy - the wisdom of all ages past - has to pay - someone 
can make a living ? Am I right? Or wrong?

What are you trying to say? You're pretty clearly wrong, very wrong, 
if you are trying to suggest that I or anyone who has written books 
about Theosophical history has made a living therefrom. It's a labor 
of love. Also you are very wrong to say that non-Theosophists who 
study HPB and come up with independent appraisals are somehow making 
Theosophy pay something. Who are you accusing, and what are you 
accusing them of exactly?
> 
> As much as I do admire your books - Paul - for highlighting the 
issue of theosophy of the Middle East -- I do reject anyone thinking -
that 'clear awareness of history' comes from academic analyzing - 
without using theosophical (i.e. wisdom) teachings. That must be fake.

Baha'is would say the same about clear awareness of their history 
without using Baha'i teachings; every other dogmatic fundamentalist 
would say you can't understand history unless you interpret it in 
terms of their own particular belief system.
> 
> Some of us knows about wisdom. And some don't.

And some of us presume to determine who does and who doesn't, and 
publicly pronounce others' widsom inferior to their own.

snip 
> 4. To me Brigitte lately very often has been not constructive - 
but destructive by using bad words - and between the lines accusing 
Theosophy for being evil-based. But that is just my view.

To argue that it is not as purely benevolent and high-minded as 
Theosophists like to imagine is not to argue that it is evil-based. 
But let Brigitte speak for herself on this issue.

I don't think Theosophy (meaning modern Blavatskianism) is evil-
based. My books tend to apologia for HPB, presenting her as 
primarily good in intentions and motivations. 

> (To Brigitte: I am so sorry Brigitte. - I think some are in love 
with you - me too - I think it is sad, that you feel it necessary to 
attack theosophy so much - it makes me sad, when people doesn't act 
sweet and good).

Perhaps it would help you to understand the dynamic if you take into 
account the years of Theosophists attacking those who question their 
history. There's an exasperation factor here, and having dealt with 
Daniel myself I know just how exasperating he can be.
> 
snip
> 
> I tend to assume you need to sort of (what some calls) - 
scientifically prove - everything you come across - with lenghty 
quotes etc - is that true ??
> 
Not at all. Most of the important things in life don't lend 
themselves to such an approach. 

snip

> Why are you then, as I see it, agreeing on, that it is allright 
bashing Blavatsky ??
> 
I'm not. I'm arguing that any questioning of Theosophical dogma 
about HPB is regarded as "bashing"-- even when it's done by people 
who evidently admire her and feel fondness for her, like Steve. It's 
Theosophists' huge loss to regard any questioning of their dogmas as 
a personal attack on their Messenger, and to react with personal 
hostility.
> 
> 9. To say : Do good. Be good. Write good words. See good. - Is it 
wrong to say that ?
> Am I interferring with others thoughts? What do you want Paul?

I want you and others to stop being enemies of intellectual freedom, 
to stop denouncing people for trying to have a discussion of HPB 
involving elements that Theosophists have traditionally avoided. To 
stop using "spiritual" put-downs that basically say "I'm better, more 
spiritual, wiser than you, and from my heights of wisdom I can see 
that you belong to category X, which I disdain for such-and-such 
reason." You do that, clearly and consistently, whether or not you 
are aware of it.

> Why are you as it seems - hunting me - in the below?

Because you snipped all the references to other people!

Can you explain your very categorical staement further? (pollution?)
> 

Complaining about the atmosphere on the list and its ugliness does 
not seem very sincere, when contained in messages that add to the 
ugliness of the atmosphere.

Hoping that helps,

Paul