Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00352)

Steve, 

I got a private email from Rich today.

He is very busy in a new job but he wrote:

". . . what I have written is published on web as you all know and 
people are welcome to quote from it, challenge it. . . ."

His major work is at:

http://www.blavatsky.net/forum/taylor/tibetanSources1.htm

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm

--- In theos-talk@y..., Steve Stubbs <stevestubbs@y...> wrote:
> Eldon:
> 
> If you have Rich's current e-mail address, may I
> suggest writing him and inviting him to join our list?
> He is far and away the most intelligent and learned
> of all the Theosophists, and to my mind also the most
> interesting. He dropped off one of the other lists
> some time ago because the Fundamentalists accused him
> of leading a conspiracy to destroy Theosophy, of being
> "a sexually perverted black magician," and all sorts
> of truly hilarious "charges." Some Fundamentalists,
> noticing correctly that he was not as ignorant as they
> were (or they as learned as he) called him "arrogant."
> I thought it was hysterically funny, but Rich became
> highly peeved and left, much to the detriment of all
> future discussions.
> 
> Incidentally, in response to your post about
> "absolutism," I remain stubbornly convinced that it
> was the Fundamentalists who drove him away who were
> wrong, and not Rich. Call me an "absolutist" if you
> will, but I value learning and intelligence over
> ignorance, stupidity, and obscurantism any day. Rich
> has a great deal to contribute. But then values
> cannot be defended rationally, being as they are
> formed prior to the development of rational thought. 
> If he ever decides to rejoin us, we will all benefit
> from his knowledge. If he shows up again on some
> other list, pls let me know so I can lurk there.
> 
> Steve
> 
> --- Eldon B Tucker <eldon@t...> wrote:
> > 
> > >Daniel:
> > >"Are you referring to his draft version available
> > at Blavatsky Net?"
> > 
> > >Brigitte:
> > >No that would never qualify as a thesis at UC
> > Berkeley, that was
> > >simple an appologetic introduction to the work he
> > wanted to start,
> > >and was written during the time he was on the
> > Theosophical mailing
> > >list, once he started his research in earnest, he
> > dissapeared from
> > >the lists becouse he felt attacked by
> > fundamentalists soon afther his
> > >first introduction was put on.
> > 
> > Here's an extract from one of Richard's messages to
> > theos-talk
> > relating to the current discussion. The message is
> > dated 01/18/1999
> > and is entitled "Re: Defense of HPB".
> > 
> > <http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/tt06881.html>
> > 
> > His online messages, from theos-talk before it moved
> > to
> > Yahoo Groups, can be found indexed at:
> > 
> > 
> > <http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/author33.html>.
> > 
> > (Note that there is a gap from when the list
> > archives got converted
> > to html and when the list moved to Yahoo Groups.
> > It'll take several
> > dozen hours to do, and I'm not sure if I'll have
> > time in the near
> > future to devote to the effort.)
> > 
> > -- Eldon
> > 
> > ---- extract from Rich's message:
> > 
> > Furthermore, there is a *HUGE* difference between
> > stating (factually, with
> > abundant "proofs") that HPB may have spelled a word
> > wrongly, or mistaken one
> > name with another -- and criticizing HPB's life
> > work. As part of my
> > schoolwork, and as part of my exploration and
> > verification of Theosophy, such
> > anomalies emerge from time to time. And I do think
> > it's important to share
> > with others such things, so that we may all ponder
> > their significance.
> > 
> > On the other hand, there ARE those who seek to
> > undermine HPB. Such people
> > impugn her credibility, deny the existence of her
> > Teachers, attack HPB's
> > intellect, chastity, or background. Some people
> > will attempt to misprepresent
> > her, and then attempt to show how silly Theosophy is
> > by killing that "straw
> > man." On all of these counts, I stand with Dallas
> > and state that we should
> > instantly come to HPB's defense. We cannot stand
> > idly by while our Teacher,
> > or her Teachers, are pulled down, and the wisdom
> > tradition is dismantled.
> > 
> > But it is quite another thing to disallow any
> > investigation and <gasp>
> > correction of HPB's statements on x, y, or z. If
> > list members plan to
> > regularly oppose discussion on such topics, I will
> > have to systematically
> > ignore them. This would be sad, in light of the
> > goal of brotherhood. It
> > would be nice to have everyone included in a
> > discussion. But obstructionism
> > is directly opposed to the spirit of free inquiry
> > and discussion, and it
> > shouldn't be tolerated. Nor do I think discussion
> > should come to a grinding
> > halt every time someone posts an
> > "anti-investigation" message.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com