Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00401)

Hi, Dallas,

I can only agree a whole lot with the below remarks of yours Dallas.
A very good email Dallas. Thanks.

But I also agree, that anyone should be allowed to say or email, what they want on this list - on the issue Theosophy - as long as they are sincerely interested in knowing about, what Theosophy is - and what it possibly couldhave to offer. Or if they have questions to ask - etc.

I think: But let us also remember - that 'intellectual facts' theosophically speaking are limited in their view on truth as such - when talking about 'emails' etc.

But that is just my humble view.

from Sufilight


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 2:45 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Did Blavatsky smoke hashish and drink alcohol?


> 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
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>