Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00167)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Bill Meredith" <bilmer@s...> wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
> Look at your comments below. You offer that your statement [about 
Paul's work] may be "nasty" but it is factual. 

Whereas it is of course an evaluation. As I pointed out in my reply 
at the time of publication, in 3 years of digging for stuff to 
discredit me with, Daniel came up with 5 minor errors out of three 
books totalling 800 pages plus. All this material occupied less than 
half a page in total, and could be removed without the slightest 
impact on my overall argument. What's really creepy and unfair are 
his sweeping boasts to the effect that it would take hundreds of 
pages for him to actually catalog all my errors, when he only managed 
to document an insignificant handful. Equally creepy and unfair is 
that the very same process could be applied to any work of comparable 
length and complexity and produce comparable results, as Daniel has 
admitted in the case of Cranston. Far more so in many cases.

As for your contention that D. is his own worst enemy, I don't know 
about that. He obviously has *some* capacity for fairness and 
objectivity that peeks out now and again. For example in the work on 
Vol. III of the SD, in arguments with Dallas about claims made on 
behalf of ULT, in a *single* post in 1994 where he described TMR as a 
treasure trove of research findings that all students of HPB ought to 
read. So I'd say rather that Daniel's worst enemies are those 
Theosophists that have encouraged him to be a hatchet man, to attempt 
to destroy another Theosophical author's reputation; who have told 
him that he has done something wonderful with his attacks on me, and 
succeeded in showing what horrible work I've done, etc. And this 
includes high ranking figures in all the Theosophical organizations.
(At the time, Daniel privately taunted me with the unnamed 
Theosophists who told him he was wonderful for refuting my horrible 
books; later he publicly admitted that such praise was worthless and 
meaningless since such people turned on him the moment he said 
something that conflicted with their dogmas.)

Years ago, Daniel told me privately that I'd be surprised if I knew 
how much he really agreed with me on some things, shared my 
perspectives, etc. In my reply, I said something to the effect 
of "in that case, look out for the danger of selling your soul to the 
devil." Meaning, he was abandoning all fairness and objectivity, as 
well as all commitment to civility in discussion of Theosophical 
history, in order to curry favor with the organizations who wanted 
someone to refute the Johnsonian heresy. Instead of taking this to 
heart, he replied that I was being "ugly" in so warning him. (My 
gazillion warnings that ALL THOSE CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS!!! made 
him look like an enraged partisan were equally ignored.)

In all sincerity I believe that what has happened here is that by 
becoming an attack dog serving Theosophical orthodoxy, despite 
knowing full well that he could have attacked Cranston just as 
viciously as he did me using the same criteria, that he sold his 
birthright for a mess of pottage. That is, he could have become a 
serious historian of the movement, participating in a collegial 
manner in the process of working on Blavatsky studies, gaining 
respect from outside scholars for original research, etc. But by 
acting on his *interests* (to be somebody respected in the movement, 
to be published by TPH, and whatnot) and violating his stated 
*principles* he has become a sectarian apologist and heretic-slayer, 
and thrown away all opportunity to be taken seriously in the world of 
scholarship.

This is a damn shame for Daniel, but also for the Theosophical 
movement. The quality of discourse about HPB has been dragged down 
into such deep mud that it can never recover in our lifetimes. 
(Thanks to Pratt for showing that Pasadena can produce something even 
more ghastly than Adyar or ULT in this regard, a truly shocking 
development for me.) Considering the possibilities that seemed to be 
on the horizon in 1994, that's sickening.

But it must have been kismet. Remember what HPB wrote at the end of 
her last book:

"Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in 
failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, 
set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible 
degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart... If, 
then, they [Theosophists] cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or 
at least taught to recognize it instantly and so avoid being led away 
by it, the result can only be that the Society will drift off on to 
some sandbank of thought or another, and there remain a stranded 
carcass to moulder and die."

Paul