[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World spending time attacking paths that one doesn't like

Apr 18, 2002 06:15 PM
by Bill Meredith

Hi Eldon, Some comments tucked in below:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eldon B Tucker" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:43 PM
Subject: Theos-World spending time attacking paths that one doesn't like

> (I'm sending this again because it did not seem to go
> out the first time, about 8 or 9 hours ago.)
> ----
> At 05:44 AM 4/17/02 +0000, you wrote:
> >Reg. Blavatsky 3
> >
> >During the past three years I have made a more or less exhaustive
> >analysis of the contents of the writings of
> >Madame H. P. Blavatsky ...
> I found the text that you're quoting at Daniel Caldwell's
> website, under a page entitled "The Sources of Madame
> Blavatsky's Writings" by William Emmette Coleman. It was at:
> <>
> The webpage mentions that it was first published in:
> >A MODERN PRIESTESS OF ISIS by Vsevolod Sergyeevich Solovyoff,
> >London, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1895, Appendix C, pages 353-66.
> The author is described as:
> >(1) Member, American Oriental Society, Royal Asiatic Society
> >of Great Britain and Ireland, Pali Text Society, Egypt
> >Exploration Fund, Geographical Society of California;
> >Corresponding Member, Brooklyn Ethical Association; and
> >Member, Advisory Council, Psychic Science Congress,
> >Chicago, Illinois.
> You might browse other pages on that website to see other
> slants on theosophical history. I don't think that the
> pages you posted are accurate in describing Theosophy.
> Coleman has a quite negative attitude towards Blavatsky
> and the philosophy.

Eldon, this statement is so revealing. Should we automatically characterize
as inaccurate those words used to describe theosophy if uttered by one we
judge quite negative in attitude? Should we then look for only positive
attitudes and read only what they say? Is theosophy just a philosophy?

> This list is to provide a place where people can study and
> find out more about the theosophical philosophy. Lengthy
> repostings of 107-year-old attacks on Blavatsky may not
> be helpful.

At least you are acknowledging that such repostings may be helpful?

> Pick any topic. Look on the Internet, and you'll find a
> wide range of opinions on it. There will be everything from
> the most negative and spiteful denunciation of the topic
> to the most unashamed praise. This is true of Theosophy and
> Blavatsky's role in partially presenting it to Western
> society. A student could spend all of his or her time in
> presenting counter arguments to the attacks.

So what's the problem? Someone says something lengthy that you don't
agree with, but because it will take all of your time to present counter
arguments, that person should just shut up...huh?

> Personally, I'd consider that a waste of time.

Then why respond at all?

I'm into
> Theosophy because I find benefit in studying its philosophy.

Same reason I'm into Christianity. Got to be more to it than that, Eldon.

> I find that I'm learning things and growing inwardly. Any
> system of thought, any philosophy, any sangha or body of
> spiritual seekers will have their enemies.

And their true believers as well.

We undertake a
> path and follow a particular dharma because it appeals to
> us and is effective in leading us to realize our spiritual
> nature.

I agree with K that Truth is a pathless land.

> People that spend their time attacking paths they don't like
> are fools. They'd find better use for their time in seeking
> out a particular path that works for them and sincerely
> following it.

Why call people fools? Is it self-righteous and judgemental to claim to
know what better one could do with one's time? Perhaps the particular path
that "works for them" is the one they are following (sincerely) now.

> -- Eldon
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application