Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00235)

Dec 19 2004

Dear Jerry and Dan:

May I do a little breaking in?

I did not mean to terminate our exchanges  

I had to go to the hospital for a while. Now trying to catch up. 

Excuse me for brevity.  

Buy the way, I think HPB has expressed a great deal on Education in The KEY
TO THEOSOPHY -- I would find it difficult to say more.  


If "thinking" could only be taught -- if freedom and independence from
"authority" were insisted on, then their might be real progress.


THEOSOPHY is a moral affair and not just head learning or the application of
the laws of Nature for selfish advantage (black magic). Nor is it merely a
bunch of quotes. 

I would hardly classify myself as an "apologist" for THEOSOPHY. A
protagonist, or an advertiser -- yes.   

But I also say at almost every turn: do your own work. Study, find out.
Don't trust "authorities." Let no one say they "think for you."

THEOSOPHY defends itself quite well without any effort on my part -- if only
people would study it. If they don't then who suffers?

Main trouble is that most go by opinions, and few actually try to prove to
themselves the verity (or reverse) of opinions adopted. They spend a lot of
time defending themselves, and especially their prejudices. If we could all
see this clearly, for ourselves, then 9/10ths of the confusion would vanish.


I have studied THEOSOPHY most of my life. To me it is a statement of facts
in Nature. Others may have their own views.  

I have an intense dislike for "buzz" words like "post modern, modernist"
etc... which signify nothing at all. That is all to me, pseudo-intellectual.
I try to deal with facts and truths, and care little for opinions and "buzz
words." 

In a few years those will be replaced, by other and newer "buzzes." -- and
what will not? THEOSOPHY will remain -- if it is indeed a statement of
facts in nature. It may be called something else, but the facts, however
named, will still be FACTS.  

They (buzz words) embrace like a mist -- insubstantially, and designed to
blur -- expressions that require deep thought and hard work to grasp.
They confuse rather then make clear. They appear to give elevation to a
conversation in which most try to make points by seeming to know much (of
what ?) -- just repartie.

Simply put: there is actually no "religion" higher than truth and fact.

THEOSOPHY is a statement of the cause and reality, including the
laws and existence of all beings.

A single word defines it completely: BROTHERHOOD.

Best wishes,

Dallas

============================
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry 
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 12:53 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: Jerry Hejka-Ekins: "Pat Deveney has a fascinating article on
A.L. Rawson...."


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