Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00403)

Hi Ho Sufilight,

----------
> From: Morten Sufilight <teosophy@mail1.stofanet.dk>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: Did Blavatsky smoke hashish and drink
alcohol?
> Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 2:11 PM
> 
> 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 could have to offer. Or if they have questions to ask - etc.

How can you possibly know which of us are "sincerely interested" and which
of us are just insincerely interested? Who is pulling whose chain here? 
What do you propose to do with those you judge to be insincere? 

> 
> 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.

Excellent thought! Let us also remember that those who worship at the
alter of Theosophy worship just the same. Do you have children? Is it
your heartfelt desire that they worship you? Where else can we look for
answers?


> But that is just my humble view.
> 
> from Sufilight

Sufilight, when I read what you offer, the word humble does not come to my
mind. Do you want to know which word does? Or does it matter?

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

>