Theos-Talk Archives (February 2006 Message tt00127)

When I opened this post, I glanced over what amounted to emotional
bombast to counter what I considered reasoned arguments on my part. 
Out of respect for this forum I took the time to contribute a reasoned
position and was greeted in return with an off the cuff diatribe
unworthy of notice.  I expected more.  In future I will simply ignore
such nonsense.  In this instance I will put forward the best argument
I can for what I understand to be Bart's position, removing the
emotional nonsense, and then expose a baseless lie.

I argued that Carlos is not worshipping Blavatsky but rather
demonstrating respect by protecting her from those who would throw mud
on her outer garments.  I showed why one would be motivated to protect
one's fellow man in general, one's Spiritual Teacher in particular. 
Bart countered with the following three arguments:
1. All humans sin, Blavatsky is human therefore Blavatsky has sinned,
and 2. Blavatsky is guilty until proven innocent, and 3. It is fair to
accuse sinners of particular crimes and repeat these accusations for
all eternity.
If the preceding arguments ring true for you, then you are sympathetic
to Bart's world and will find his arguments compelling.  I will argue
for a different world.

I am tired of this type of argument and would be happy to see it
removed from this site once and for all.  If we accept for a moment
that Blavatsky is a sinner, does it follow immediately that we should
take seriously unfounded allegations made against her person?  Why do
many Western Democracies nominally adhere to the dictum "Innocent
until PROVEN guilty"?  Jesus shamed the Pharisees with the council,
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."  In Jesus' case the
sinner was caught red-handed so there was no question of her guilt and
still Jesus shamed them into compassion by pointing out that we are
all in the same boat, we are all human and we all make mistakes.  He
used the heart-doctrine to counter the eye-doctrine, compassion to
counter merciless justice.  Compassion also extends to the accused
because anyone can be wrongfully accused.  We all know how accused
murderers or even those exonerated of murder still have a stain on
their reputations.  Blavatsky should not have to endure unproven
allegations.  People are innocent until proven guilty.  But what about
the argument that "All people are sinners . . ."?

It may be that all people are sinners, but it does not follow that the
guilt of being human allows others to lie about you.  The vague
accusation that Blavatsky is a sinner does not allow people to say
that we should entertain the serious accusation that she faked
phenomena or anything of the like.  Such would be a specific charge
and each such charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before
we use it.  If a theosophist sits back and allows these charges to go
unanswered, then he is no theosophist.  The onus is on the accuser to
prove the charges, not on the accused to prove that they are not
guilty.  It therefore follows that no Theosophist will deal with
unproven allegations.  They will simply sweep them off the table. 
Does this indicate god-worship?  No, it is a sign of one's ability to
understand justice and compassion.

Bart also seems to belittle Carlos' writing in that he sees in it the
uninformed emotional sympathies of the simple masses.  There is an
intellectual disease whereby merciless intellect is used to belittle
the blind sympathies of the masses.  This is not what I see with
Carlos, his compassion for Blavatsky demonstrates a mental maturity
when placed in the world of cold merciless reason.  Carlos has nothing
to appologize for, we could all learn from him.

If Bart despite everything sill believes that Carlos worships
Blavatsky then he must be a mind reader.  Defending another persons
reputation from unjust attacks is a manifested behavior.  That
behavior could be motivated by any one or several of uncountably many
reasons.  If Bart knows the exact reason then he is some sort of
Master and we should turn the site over to him so he can bless all of
us with his great wisdom and insight.  If he can't read the mind of
Carlos, then his statement, "Carlos treats Blavatsky as perfect and
above all criticism" is not a truth but rather an ugly opinion of his.

Finally, Bart has the timerity to use the Hollocaust Card.  Accusing
others of denying the Hollocaust is THE most pathetic and weasley way
to undermine the force of anothers argument. In my mind it is almost
always a sign of moral cowardice.  The Hollocaust has for many become
the new God whose mere mention demands all those who hear to bow down
in meek servitude.  Apparently Bart, who has demonstrated great
concern over the object of Carlos' adoration is quite pleased to let
us all know that he worships at this mighty shrine.  Regrettably his
accusation that Fohat has denied the Hollocaust is a bold faced lie.

Fohat touched upon the Hollocaust (incidentally so) when two writers,
who did not deny the Hollocaust (excuse the capital H), but rather
presented further evidence that ran counter to the popular history on
the subject, were persecuted by others, including the Countries they
lived in, various institutions, businesses and/or their peers.  I am
not an historian on WWII and its aftermath and could only have an
uninformed opinion at best on the subject.  Consequently I would not
confer any uninformed opinions I have on the readers of Fohat, since
it was me who wrote the editorials.  What I did object to was the
unjust persecution of these two individuals.  I made this perfectly
clear, I thought, in the editorial and clarified it still further in
the following editorial (see Fohat Vol. II, issues 2 and 3).  I hope
as theosophists we are able to talk openly and frankly about whatever
we want and do not feel a need to censure ourselves over what amounts
to an historical event.  Fohat never denied the Hollocaust, that is an
ugly lie.  As we are talking of lies, Bart's cynical move of taking my
argument that the public are not informed enough on the esoteric topic
of theosophical history to be able to discriminate between the true
and the false, and then accusing me of claiming that they do not have
the POWER to discriminate is sleazy and dishonest if it was done
knowingly.  If it was not done knowingly then perhaps he should
re-read and reflect on matters before going off in a rant.

This paragraph is directed to the moderator of this site.  I have
called Bart a liar which is either the truth or a lie.  Either way,
one of us has lied.  Please suspend the liar from this site pending an
apology on his part.

Bruce


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@...> wrote:
>
> robert_b_macd wrote:
> >     carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
> > 
> >>As to me, he is welcome to do so. I would be proud to be          
> >>attacked instead of her.   To be critized for defending HPB is good
> >>karma,  not only to me, but to all those who have the  opportunity
> >>and the priviledge to do this.  I also happen to be among those
> >>students who have a heartfelt commitment with their souls not to be
> >>silent while utter lies and libels are publicized against their
> >>sacred Teacher.
> > 
> > "Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all
> > in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H."
> > 
> >           	 - Koot Hoomi.
> > 
> > &#65279;Now one may ask what is happening here?  I can't know for
sure what
> > Bart is alluding to, but here is how I understand it (and please
> > correct me if I'm wrong).  Carlos comes close to sounding like he has
> > put HPB on some sort of pedestal and commenced worshiping her.
> > However, to read it that way would be uncharitable.  
> 
> 	Uncharitable? Does that mean telling the truth? Carlos treats
Blavatsky 
> as perfect and above all criticism. Not even the Mahatmas considered 
> themselves to be either.
> 
> > Bart then teases
> > Carlos with the kind of reply that the enemies of Truth so often trot
> > out in these types of instances giving us the KH quote (a quote
> > referring to the capitalized pronoun "Him" that Christians are so fond
> > of) out of context.  At this point bells should be going off in the
> > head of every theosophist who reads this and we should be asking
> > ourselves how to understand the principles of this passage from Carlos
> > so that when fellow theosophists are attacked for allegedly worshiping
> > anyone, we know how to defend them.
> 
> 	They laughed at the Wright Brothers. The also laughed at the Marx 
> Brothers. Carlos has been advocating treating Blavatsky as a deity. I 
> called a spade a spade.
> 
> > &#65279;When Carlos chooses to defend his Teacher of the sacred or
"sacred
> > Teacher" it is only because he understands this fact.   Blavatsky died
> > a poor woman writing to the very end trying to promote the spirit of
> > the movement that she helped initiate.  She did not profit materially
> > from founding the Theosophical Society.  In fact most of the little
> > income she made was used to help further the cause.  If she didn't
> > profit then why did she do it?  As I understand it, it was done out of
> > love for humanity and this makes her a Great Soul (excuse the
> > capitals) and therefore deserving of respect.
> 
> 	I certainly respect Blavatsky. Enough not to turn her into something 
> that, from her writings, it is clear that she despised.
> 
> > &#65279;In as much as we are all trying to help others along this
same Path
> > and don't do it for money but rather for love of humanity, we all
> > deserve to be shown this same respect.  For example, if Bart were to
> > accuse Daniel of being a CIA disinformation artist specializing in HPB
> > and Theosophical matters who is trying to plant divisive ideas within
> > the body of theosophical knowledge, we should all have to defend
> > Daniel from Bart and I am sure that we all would.  Daniel has put in
> > thousands of unpaid hours helping theosophists and if he has made any
> > errors, then it must be assumed that the errors were out of ignorance
> > (a defect that we should all have the humility to acknowledge having).
> 
> 	All I can say is, huh? Next thing, you're going to say that the 
> Holocaust never happened. Wait a second, your magazine already did.
> 
> > The public are not experts
> > and therefore lack the means to discriminate between truth and lie,
> > accepted theory and rejected theory, etc. 
> 
> 	In other words, you consider yourself better than everybody else. 
> Unless you, too lack the means to discriminate between truth and lie, 
> accepted theory and rejected theory, etc. If you do have that lack,
then 
> I apologize.
> 
> 	Bart
>