theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

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

Re: Theos-World Jerry Hejka-Ekins: "Pat Deveney has a fascinating article on A.L. Rawson...."

Dec 18, 2004 12:53 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins


Dan,

First of all, I did not have you in mind when I used the phrase "Theosophical apologists."
Second, the comment was in the context of a discussion I was having with Dallas concerning modernist verses post modernist approaches to communicating theosophy, and therefore the comment was rhetorical.
Regarding the article in TH, I was indeed surprised by some of the data Deveney found in his research, and I believe that anyone interested in Theosophical history will also be surprised. Were you not surprised? If you were already aware of everything that Deveney had discovered concerning Rawson, then you are way ahead of me, and ahead of Deveney too. In any case, I would be interested in reading your comments concerning the article. --j



Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:

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]




Yahoo! Groups Links















[Back to Top]


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