Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00230)

Jerry,

Thanks for your reply below but I am still
puzzled by your initial statement.

Therefore I ask you again:

Could you share with us your
thoughts as to why you
felt these "surprises" would
have to be explained away
by the Theosophical apologists?

Daniel
http://hpb.cc


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
wrote:
> 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
>