Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00455)

Bruce,

Thanks for the follow-up.  I see what you are saying more clearly now. 
My apologies if I appeared to be putting words in your mouth.  I did not 
intend to come across in that manner. 
peace within,


bill

robert_b_macd wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@...>
> wrote:
>   
> > robert_b_macd wrote:
> >     
> > > What Path do you follow?
> > >
> > > Scholars: Want truth above all! Are willing to wade through lies,
> > > destroying people's reputations in the mistaken beief that this will
> > > lead to some kind of truth.
> > >
> > > Hagiographers: Put their religious brotherhood above all!  Are
> > >       
> willing
>   
> > > to attack and vilify those individuals and groups who do not follow
> > > their creed.
> > >
> > > Thesophists: Must balance Truth with Universal Brotherhood.  The
> > >       
> only
>   
> > > thing a person owns is his reputation, ideas belong to all.  Protect
> > > the truth of the only thing with value to the individual, each
> > >       
> other's
>   
> > > reputations.  Only environment in which a true pursuit of truth can
> > >       
> be
>   
> > > practiced.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       
> > Bruce,
> >
> > Your version of what a theosophists is not my definition.  Though you
> > say "Universal Brotherhood," You seem to be talking about a
> >     
> fraternity:
>   
> > A group that excludes others based on a commonly held set of beliefs.
> > Perhaps you and Carlos and Jerome see yourselves as members of such a
> > fraternity, but I am a student of theosophy (at-large) and I do not
> > accept your narrow understandings of the 3 objects and what they mean.
> > I have in mind a brotherhood that is Universal where no one is
> > excluded.  No one.
> >
> >     
> I certainly am not talking of a fraternity in your sense.  I am only
> interested in protecting all people's oppurtunity to speak up and be
> heard.  As soon as someone enters into the dialogue and sticks to the
> dialogue, he is by definition a theosophist.  If he or she tries to
> score points by blackening someone else's reputation, then they cease to
> a theosophist.  Pretty simple and pretty inclusive.
>   
> > Does one protect the truth of HPB's reputation by refusing to
> > acknowledge that her life was such that she created enemies who would
> > themselves lie to discredit her?   That she had such an impact upon
> > those around her is a true part of her life and her reputation.  These
> > letters are the evidence of that truth.  Would she object to the
> > publication of these letters today?   I  think not.  Perhaps she would
> > say, "Let people see both sides and decide for themselves who Madame
> > Blavatsky really was.  In the centuries to come, Theosophy will not
> >     
> rise
>   
> > or fall because of my reputation, but rather it rests upon the ability
> > of each student of theosophy to discern the truth for themselves and
> >     
> to
>   
> > grant each of their brothers that same opportunity."  Something like
> > that is what I think she would say.
> >
> >     
> I cannot agree with you.   I am not saying that the letters cannot be
> published under any circumstances.  You are putting words into my mouth.
> If they are to be used, use them responsibly.  I could dream up
> thousands of responsible uses for them.  For example, a history of the
> enemies of HPB, where context is explained, what HPB had to say
> regarding them, and why one should take them seriously or not.  Then I
> can come along and judge the writers arguments and comment on those
> arguments.  To stick the letters into a volume of Blavatsky's Letters
> without comment is not responsible, it is dishonest. That is not
> scholarship either, it is something else.  According to Gregory Tillet,
> John Cooper was at least going to comment on the letters of dubious
> origin.
>   
> > It seems that protecting her reputation has become a bit of a
> >     
> religious
>   
> > experience in itself.  Hiding the evidence of scandals,  determining
> > that others are better off for never having seen them,  in effect
> > misrepresenting the truth about HPB's life is no great service to her.
> > She herself published /The Talking Image of Urur /.  She later wrote,
> > "if Mme. Blavatsky -- presumably the 'Talking Image' -- does not
> >     
> object
>   
> > to finding herself represented as a kind of mediumistic poll parrot,
> >     
> why
>   
> > should other 'theosophists' object?,"   adding,  "If the first object
> >     
> of
>   
> > our Society be not to study one's own self, but to find fault with all
> > except that self, then, indeed, the T.S.  is doomed to become -- and
> >     
> it
>   
> > already has in certain centres-- a Society for mutual admiration; a
> >     
> fit
>   
> > subject for the satire of so acute an observer as we know the author
> >     
> of
>   
> > 'The Talking Image of Urur' to be."
> >
> >     
> Again, you misrepresent me, and as far as I know both Carlos and Jerome.
> If you look on the ETS website you will find much of Beatrice Hastings
> work defending HPB.  It seems that if anything, by our noise Carlos,
> Jerome, myself, and others are bringing the above to the forefront. 
> What are we hiding?  I applaud ETS's reprinting of Madame Coulomb's
> "Some Account . . ."  so that future scholars will have the opportunity
> to investigate the matter for themselves because it will exist in
> theosophical archives.  You sound like you want things completely wide
> open so that people can act irresponsibly without censure.  It seems to
> me if you are an historian dealing with other people's lives and
> reputations, there are certain limits that you ought to observe.  Or is
> this whole matter beyond the field of ethics?  Or maybe it is ethically
> good to malign others without proof - is that what you are saying?  It
> seems that the only thing that was hidden in the Algeo presentation of
> Blavatsky's letters was the other side of the story.  The ETS has done
> as much or more work trying to preserve our Theosophical heritage than
> any other modern theosophical group.  Jerome and Carlos have done
> countless hours of work for theosophy and its history.  What are you
> trying to say here?  Are you dismissing us because we have the temerity
> to ask those who use these letters to give the entire story?  If there
> are those that believe the letters are accurate, break down the doors of
> the Adyar archives, find the corroborating evidence and present it here.
> When ETS was reprinting Judge material, who came to us telling us to let
> the matter die and stop what we were doing?  It was representatives of
> Wheaton.  Who is hiding what?  The message is simple, there exists both
> truth and brotherhood, and there exists a responsible path between the
> two that pays homage to both.  When you fall away from this path you do
> justice to neither truth nor brotherhood.
>   
> > peace within,
> >
> >
> > bill
> >     
> Excuse my rambling,
> Bruce
>
>
>   
> >     
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>