Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00161)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> However, I remind you that you undertook on very little study or
> acquaintance 

That was not the judgment of SUNY Press or the many subsequent 
authors who found my work useful enough to cite, nor of the majority 
of reviewers.

to write a book concerning the great Teachers, the Mahatmas.
> In that, in my esteem, you trivialized Them and Their work. I 
protested. I also asked you some important questions. They are 
still unanswered. I do not understand why.
> 
They were not questions. They were aggressive, hostile demands for 
proof from someone who had not read the book. Your letter demanding 
proof came in response to an article in Gnosis that served as the 
introduction to The Masters Revealed which came out a year later. 
That's why you received no answer other than the suggestion to read 
further. But in the case of aggressive, hostile demands from 
someone who had read my work carefully, I replied at great length.  
You write:


> Further, I have seen no answer from you to Mr. Daniel Caldwell's 
> 
> PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS
> 
> If you have offered some answers to these, I would be glad to see 
them.

All you need to do it go to Daniel's website, where my replies are 
linked. This has been online for 7 years now, so your lack of 
seeing is obviously due to a lack of looking.
> 
> I, indeed, will leave it to the "audience" to decide whether your
> communiqués have any value or relevance to THEOSOPHY.  
> 
And I return the favor.

> Personally, and I am sorry to have to say this, I object to having 
to read what you write.
> 
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ ANYTHING I WRITE. I STRONGLY URGE that you 
do not. But in any case I will not read anything you write, even if 
it carries a header of a thread I started. After ten years or so of 
regular personal attacks from you, there is no point opening any 
post of yours to find out when the next attack is coming.

> What, for instance, has the psychism of Cayce to do with the goals 
of real spiritual advancement that THEOSOPHY offers and teaches?  
> 
That is an example of a rhetorical question that could be answered 
were it sincere. I might point out to you, however, that THEOSOPHY 
Magazine, organ of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS, wrote a highly 
favorable obituary on the occasion of Cayce's death in 1945.  
Perhaps there has been a certain hardening since?

NOW STOP READING WHAT I WRITE. You will then have no grounds for 
objection.

KPJ