Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00227)

Sometime ago, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:

"I think you will be very interested in the 
October [2004] issue of Theosophical History, which 
should be going into the mail in the next
week or so. Pat Deveney has a fascinating 
article on A.L. Rawson, whose testimony has 
been used to prove some things about HPB, 
while other statements of his have been 
ignored when they were --let us
say--inconvient to the party-line 
version of history. With giving away
the article, just let me say that Mr. 
Deveney has dug us some real surprises 
which am sure that certain Theosophical 
apologists who pose as
historians will have to explain away."

I have now read the Deveney article and though

the article may contain "some real surprises", I 

am somewhat puzzled why these "surprises" will

have to be explained away by "certain Theosophical

apologists who pose as historians."

It is unclear to me why these apologists would

have to explain anything away as given in

the Deveney article.

I am also puzzled why Jerry apparently

felt the need to label certain unnamed

individuals as "Theosophical

apologists who pose as historians."

I think we can safely assume that

Jerry does not consider himself

as one of these Theosophical

apologists.

Maybe Jerry could share with

us his thoughts as to why he

felt these "surprises" would

have to be explained away

by the Theosophical apologists.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc












[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]