Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00664)

Dear Paul,

Tuesday, February 22, 2005, 1:31:19 AM, kpauljohnson wrote:

> This will have to be my last post for a while as I am getting
> behind schedule on a current project.

Sure. Take your time.


> The judgment of one's peers must ultimately be the standard of
> appraising the success or failure of a scholarly book.

Well, you see, I care very little about the success or failure of any
book, I'm only interested in the information it carries.


> Here's a quote from 1889 that should give some context on HPB's
> earlier stories about her travels and contacts: "to even my best
> friends I have never given but fragmentary and superficial accounts
> of my travels, nor do I propose to gratify anyone's curiosity, least
> of all that of my enemies." This does not imply lying but it
> certainly implies concealing the truth.

Fine. So what? Who cares about implications?


> The Old Woman is accused of *untruthfulness, inaccuracy* in her
> statements. 'Ask no questions and you will receive *no lies*. *She
> is forbidden* to say what she knows. You may cut her to pieces, and
> she will not tell. Nay-- she is ordered *in cases of need to mislead
> people.* (* indicate italics in printed source.)

Again "can be" does not equal "is" and "mislead" does not mean "lie":
it is quite easy to mislead by not correcting false notions of those
who are misled. Telling lies is a sign of weakness, and if one has to
do that, that means one has made a mistake one cannot correct by more
effective means.


>> > Yes, she lied about their names and other details
>> 
>> This is a strong assertion (if not a claim) and I would like to see
>> some evidence. Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig through your voluminous
>> books

> They're not at all voluminous and the only one that concerns this
> subject is The Masters Revealed. 

But offline, aren't they?


> I can show her lying, e.g.
> ...

[snip]

Now, that's a subject for discussion beyond the semi-assertive
sophistry, at last. :) Since I don't have at hand any evidence neither
supporting nor ruining your conclusions, I'd like to invite Mr. Daniel
H. Caldwell -- who, i'm sure, has both -- to say a few words here.


> Theosophists can dismiss the C&J version as fictionalization (here
> they will admit that's what she was doing because Olcott makes it so
> clear).

AFAIK, "From The Caves and Jungles" was never a testimony for a jury,
but rather a novel.


> But why three other conflicting versions? Look to those earlier
> quotes I gave for a clue as to motive and method here.

Conclusions derived from words of such an evasive witness wouldn't be
rock-solid, I suppose. So, I presume, HPB must be entirely removed
from the basement of your theory where her words are not dubbed by
people less confined by pledges than she was.


> Note that I never claim to present conclusive proof but only a
> most-likely interpretation of evidence.

But this means you can not "show her lying", you can only assume this.
If so, then you simply have added yet another bucket to the sea of
speculation about those who are beyond.


Good luck in your studies.

Vladimir