Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00224)

To all concerned,

I'm glad that we now have all the arguments and counter arguments on the 
table, so each of us can decide for ourselves what may or may not be the truth.   

As for myself, if I had to play the devil's advocate (even while still 
remaining in the dark about who is or is not guilty of what, and having never been a 
great fan of any of the historians or archivists among us :-) -- then it was 
worthwhile taking the time -- if this endless gossipy blabber about the past 
actions of individuals will come to a stop ...  So we can all get back to 
impersonally discussing theosophy and its practical applications in the present and 
for the future.   

Thank you Steve, Robert, Bruce, Dallas and others for helping clarify the 
issues and allowing me now to bypass all the mail on this nonproductive subject 
and get back to my own work of reading and answering the more than 140 piled up 
letters in my box referring to my own theosophical scientific interests.   I 
also hope that Carlos will stop his endless prosecutorial rantings about all 
this old hat stuff.   

My only regret is that Daniel didn't come forth and clarify the issues for 
himself.   

>From my own particular point of view, I think it far more important for us to 
find ways to spread broadcast the teachings of theosophy in "the language of 
this age" among the common people outside of our inner circles -- as HPB 
advised was the work of the TM and its "companions" in this century -- than to 
waste time dealing with issues of the past that cannot be resolved no matter how 
much we talk about it.   

I hope this clears the table once and for all -- so we can all get back to 
the real theosophical business at hand, independent of all considerations about 
organizations or personalities...   Whether it be our helping individual 
theosophists advance on the path, or joining in with others to help change the 
world mind to understand theosophical principles, and possibly, individually and 
collectively put them in voluntary practice -- without coercion by demagogues 
and their governmental or religious organizations.

Isn't that the end in view that all true theosophists, as workers for the 
Theosophical Movement, should always keep in mind?   Does all this infighting 
gain us anything?   Are those who instigate it helping or harming the cause of 
theosophy?   

Let's start thinking about that before we get caught up in these 
controversies by taking sides.   

Carlos is right in one respect by pointing out that exposing lies 
repetitively only plays into the hands of the Dugpas.   Diverting us into considerations 
of the inner workings of effete or rogue organizations or their leaders, 
doesn't help either.   Why should theosophists be concerned with such diversionary 
politics? Try comparing it with current world politics, to see how its 
blinding effects, through constant contradictory "News bites" divert people from 
joining together and doing the right things to end all world problems.   
Propoganda is propaganda no matter how you look at it.     

The old saying, "Theosophy is what theosophy does," still holds.   We could 
easily substitute the word "theosophy" with *theosopher*.   

The problem for all of us (including myself) is practicing what we preach. <
/:-)>

Best wishes,

Lenny





In a message dated 3/5/06 12:34:51 PM, sallev1@yahoo.com writes:


> Robert-I find your post most useful, and as you hoped, at least for me, it 
> fleshed things out more clearly.

>           Also, I agree, that Daniel needs to answer for his poor sense of 
> archivalism. And because it is so obviously poorly done, one wonders at his 
> motive. To me this is a large part of the issue: Motive. Why does he do what he 
> does? He says he feels that all sides need to be represented, but his method 
> only puts all together, leaving newer students with this mish mosh of 
> information. It is as if, by doing it this way, he feels that one can read this new 
> presentation and will not have to do research, because all has been 
> presented.
>            Actually, before Daniel and Alegeo's work, all had already been 
> in print, but since the way these historical issues were originally reported, 
> in their particular actual context, when read within this context, things 
> make sense. However, just freely publishing, without the context in which these 
> things occurred, all is contridictory. Therefore, I believe that it is in 
> this sense that he does HPB a disservice.
>           But I think that it is abundently clear that it is time to move 
> on. Let all who are interested, read the recent posts and judge for themselves. 
> The more we post, we risk making all of the original revealing information 
> about this business further and further obscured.
>           Regarding Carlos's revelations of the inner working of Adyar's 
> inner movement: Perhaps a better way to report this is to give the information 
> in a kind of graph presentation where Carlos's work is easy to see in relation 
> to how Adyar represents itself. To be fair, there should not be any 
> suggestions as to how it aught to be taken or compared, just frank information. Then 
> all may read and, again, folks may judge for themselves. And it too aught not 
> be run into the ground, just honestly presented. True, if there are 
> documents, which when presented, honestly assist in clarifying things, they too aught 
> to be presented, but this business of attempting to lead another's 
> understanding, even with the best of intentions, has already caused the kind of 
> polarized reations, which tends to obscure the purpose of the revelatory 
> information.
>   
>   Steve
> 
> robert_b_macd <robert.b.macdonald@hotmail.com> wrote:
>   --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@... wrote:
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 3/4/06 4:52:00 PM, robert.b.macdonald@... writes:
> >
> >
> > > >Theosophists and others,
> > > >
> > > >The following letter has one basic failure of understanding that
> belies
> > > >every statement it makes or conclusion it implies. And that
> understanding
> > > >is that; A true "Historian" can only report *everything* that is
> pertinent
> > > >to the *truth* of *exactly* what happened, including what anyone
> said or
> > > >wrote, at any particular time in history -- without making any
> personal
> > > >judgments or opinions about any of it.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that this is exactly what Daniel refuses to do, make a
> > > personal judgment. If he believes the Coulombs and Solovyoffs of this
> > > world, he should have the courage to say so and argue why they
> should be
> > > taken seriously. If he believes, as others have argued, that much
> of what
> > > they say is fabricated (hence lies), he should have the courage to
> come out
> > > strong in support of HPB. What Daniel does instead (intentionally
> or not)
> > > is insidious. He repeats the lies without any argument at all (he
> simply
> > > states that some of the points of view are from enemies, as if
> enemies and
> > > liars are the same thing). Some would argue that this lack of
> taking a
> > > stance is cowardice at best, and diabolical at its worst.
> > >
> > > Depends on whether or not Daniel wrote his book simply as an unbiased
> > historian or as a biased theosophist or pseudo theosophist with some
> sort of ax to
> > grind. My argument is that we should not allow ourselves to
> prejudge that
> > issue, and if either is true, then Carlos is still wrong in his
> personal
> > harassment of Daniel based on suspician alone with respect to
> another unrelated issue
> > (i.e., Daniel's supposed fraud of using a pseudonym and his "guilty
> until
> > proven innocent" silence).
> > >
> 
> I think it is on this point our understanding of what is going on
> differs. First of all, I don't know what an "unbiased historian" is.
> It seems that all historians are stuck with whatever prejudices they
> bring to the project. If as a scientist you present a paper before
> your peers, I trust that they understand that the paper expresses a
> point of view, your point of view, as to how you view a particular
> scientific problem. They expect you to make persuasive arguments as
> to why your point of view should be accepted. They will test you with
> probing questions to see what weaknesses exist with your arguments.
> To expect anything less from historians is to belittle the work they
> do. To say that Daniel has presented an unbiased presentation
> belittles historical research. What Daniel has done is gone into the
> historical archives and presented items from those archives without
> fair commentary on them.
> 
> Dave has presented us with the following as to what Daniel has written
> concerning his Coulomb testimony:
> 
> "The Coulomb attack, as was later evident, had no solid foundation
> whatsoever. It was based on forged and partially forged letters,
> purporting to have been written by H. P. Blavatsky, with instructions
> to arrange fraudulent psychic phenomena of various kinds. A Christian
> missionary magazine in Madras published the most incriminating
> portions of these letters."
> 
> What value does a lie add to a book that is purportedly about "The
> Occult World of Madame Blavatsky"? Are not lies when retold simply
> dealing in gossip? Is this not pandering to man's lower nature? If
> he believes the above then why even include the letter? Lies do not
> add balance to an argument. In no way is a lie indicative of an
> unbiased presentation. If I am going to write a book on Daniel,
> should I throw a few lies in to balance things out and make the
> presentation less biased? I think it is important we understand what
> is going on here.
> 
> Here is the other side of the coin. Archives exist for a reason. One
> of the roles of an archivist is to check out the credentials of the
> researcher wanting to access the archive. If the researcher is known
> for producing salascious books dealing with the personal foibles of
> his subject matter, then the archivist might, quite responsibly,
> refuse that particular researcher access. This, admittedly is a
> judgment call, but the very fact that there is a judgment to be made
> indicates that there is an ethical point at stake here. Daniel styles
> himself as an archivist, but then he turns around and makes everything
> public. He presents to that selfish element of the research community
> the material they need to do their dirty work, whatever it may be. As
> an archivist it could be argued he is being irresponsible, as an
> historian cowardly, as an agent provocateur diabolical. Whatever he
> is, and I don't claim to know, he should be confronted and asked to
> explain himself. If he wants to be an historian, then be one. If he
> wants to be an archivist, then be an archivist. Just don't mix
> everything together and call it the role of an unbiased historian for
> it surely is not that. All he does with his gossip by repeating it is
> to keep it alive. Morally, it would be better if it were allowed to
> die back into the dark corners of the archivists cellar.
> 
> I firmly believe that this is the argument that Daniel should be
> dealing with. If Carlos is asking Daniel whether, essentially, he is
> an agent provocateur, perhaps this is the reason why.
> 
> I hope this fleshes out the argument more fully,
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]