Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00125)

Dear Adelasie,

If you've already left, this will await your return. Will comment 
while thoughts are fresh and wish you a pleasant sojourn. You wrote:

> Indeed she did. But maybe you will forgive me if I say that some of 
> the things I have been reading on this list lately sound as if 
> someone were trying to diminish or even discredit her and her work. 

Nothing to forgive! But I would suggest that such a perception is 
1/3 inaccurate, 1/3 self-fulfilling, and perhaps only a third 
accurate. The inaccurate part of the perception is that it takes 
subjective implications and turns them into objective intentions. 
Now, I get in hot water when defending other people or when defending 
myself; in the former case tangled up in confusing exchanges, in the 
latter case accused of "nauseous [sic-- he meant nauseating] self-
promotion." But will choose the latter course and say firmly-- with 
even my antagonists Daniel Caldwell and John Algeo agreeing-- my 
books are FRIENDLY to HPB. They have a decided pro-Theosophy bias. 
Everyone who knew me when writing them-- including prominent figures 
in the Adyar and Pasadena TSes-- knows full well that they were 
written in a spirit of admiration and respect for HPB. Yet Dallas, 
and a few other fundamentalists, insist for years now that they are 
deliberate attacks on her reputation, that is that someone (me) was 
out to diminish or discredit her and her work. That is purely their 
imagination and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Why would 
they presume that their imagination of my intentions has more weight 
than my own testimony and that of everyone who knows me? Because 
THEY find the IMPLICATIONS of my work to diminish and discredit HPB 
FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, and assume that the IMPLICATIONS they 
perceive must be IDENTICAL to the INTENTIONS of the book.

Likewise, I'd say that in general neither Steve nor Brigitte intends 
to diminish or discredit HPB. They intend to get to the bottom of 
things and figure her out. That LEADS them into territory that LOOKS 
to certain doctrinaire followers as if they INTEND to attack her. 
But then Christian fanatics accuse scholars of Christian history of 
attacking Jesus-- simply because their work leads to implications 
conflicting with the fanatics' beliefs.

Then there's the fact that Steve, Brigitte and I often find ourselves 
communicating with people who say the most nonsensical things in 
support of HPB's most unlikely claims, and convey lots of personal 
antagonism in the process. Then, because someone else has tried 
to "build up" HPB in an illogical and silly manner, the response to 
that LOOKS like an attempt to "tear her down" but in fact is 
determined mostly by the kind of argument that is being answered.

And then there might actually be some actual diminish/discredit 
intentions going on-- but even then the target isn't HPB herself, 
whom Steve, Brigitte and I all like and admire-- but the little tin 
god that Theosophists have made of her.

> What is the point of that? If it rings true to a person, it does. 

Right. But the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ring true to certain 
persons. Does that mean others shouldn't examine them in the light 
of historical evidence and try to persuade them or others that they 
are wrong in taking them at face value?

If it 
> doesn't, it doesn't. Nobody can convince anyone else of either 
side. 

No one can convince Dallas or Daniel that HPB ever told a lie or made 
a mistake-- and maybe that's true of you. No one can convince Steve 
or Brigitte or me that she didn't, in light of abundant evidence. 
But we are only 5 out of 170 subscribers or so. All those silent 
lurkers are potentially open to arguments pro and con-- and it's 
really about them, not trying to convert true believers to a more 
sensible and sane appreciation. The true believers don't own HPB, 
don't own Theosophy, don't own this list. There are other readers 
out there who appreciate contributions like Brigitte's even if you 
and Dallas don't.

> We all have to learn our own way. Isn't there some way to talk 
> about history without questioning the validity of people and events 
> that others find wholely satisfying and even inspiring? 
> > 
You mean, without asking whether or not stories people told about 
themselves and events were true or not? NO. But my question--
isn't there some way to talk about history without people perceiving 
this kind of question as a vicious attack on their belief system? 

> It seems to me that there is a difference between examining the 
> statements made in the literature in the light of our own 
experience, validating them by this process, and accepting them if we 
find them to be true, and trying to prove that people and events in 
the past were or were not what they appeared to be or said they were.

Theosophical apologists are about "proving that HPB was what she 
appeared to be or said she was." Objective historical scholarship on 
HPB is about *trying to find out the truth* not about proving any 
preconceived belief system.

The 
> former seems to me to be more than a life's work, and worth the 
> effort. The latter, all due respect, seems somehow beside the 
point. 

Indeed so. But the effort to find out the truth about historical 
figures is-- well, maybe beside *your* point but it *is* my point. 
Even now with my own ancestry. I'm not out to prove my great-great-
grandparents were heroes or villains, just to *find out what their 
lives were really like.*

> about who we are and what we are doing here? Why not focus on 
> the material?

Those who want to focus on the material from an emic POV would do 
better to stick to that than to abuse those who take an etic POV and 
tell them they have no right to do so.

Maybe I just don't understand, not being much of an 
> intellectual, but when the discussion gets nasty I always feel as 
if 
> there might be some more effective way to proceed. 

Sure. Theosophists should relax about HPB rather than be 
hypervigilant, getting nasty whenever their doctrinaire version of 
her is questioned.

> This is a very important point. Shall we concentrate on the 
fallibility inherent in the manifestation of the eternal reality? Or 
shall we direct our attention to the essential reality itself? 

Shall we perceive those two options as mutually exclusive and 
antagonistic, or accept that they are intricately, indeed 
inextricably interwoven?

snip

> Can you respect my approach? Or that of the someone I admire?

Yours, yes. The someone you admire, no. Can one respect an approach 
that is fundamentally and deeply disrespectful of oneself 
personally? Maybe in an abstract way, from a distance. Not when I 
see him doing the same thing to others regularly.
> > 
snip

> I guess this is about some exchange external to the present one. 

About the whole history of certain Theosophists online.

> But I haven't seen any posts in my exposure to this list by anyone 
> who espouses such doctrinaire philosophy.

GASP!!

eternal 
> universal truth. I don't see theosophy as a belief system at all, 
nor do I see others say that it is. 

They don't call it that but they absolutely treat it as such.

It's only my view, of course, but what 
> I do see is a serious and sincere attempt to shed some light on the 
> darkness of fear confusion that presently ensnares a large part of 
> humanity. Maybe that is your intent as well. If so, we all have a 
lot 
> in common. 
> > 
Yes, false beliefs about history held by religious fanatics have 
contributed tremendously to humanity's darkness, fear and confusion. 
Anyone who works towards a clearer and more objective picture of our 
past is thereby laying a foundation for a brighter future.

Cheers,

Paul