Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00795)

What is it that damages the reputation of HPB more than anything else?  Is 
it the periodical negative biographies put out by Meade, Bechofer-Roberts, 
or Washington?  No, these can always be shown to be unbalanced distortions 
of the actual facts.  Theosophists can deal with these kinds of attacks.  
What is problematic is the allegations themselves.  The enemies of Blavatsky 
would no doubt destroy the arguments of these inadequate biographies on the 
one hand, and then declare that in all fairness the allegations that 
prompted the biographies to begin with have still not been dealt with 
adequately by theosophists.  The enemies do not need to prove anything, they 
need only keep the allegations alive.  Theosophists, being fair-minded 
individuals, will in many cases admit that it is only fair that the 
allegations be kept alive.  After all, theosophists have nothing to hide.

This is a trap.  Allegations by their very nature can never be 100% proved 
or disproved.  If HPB says one thing and her enemies say another, who is 
telling the truth?  In a court of law you look for internal inconsistencies 
within the various stories and inconsistencies with other known facts.  You 
also look at the credibility of the witnesses.  You come to believe more in 
one story than the other when all the facts are put before you.  That is not 
to say that if new information comes to light you might not change your mind 
completely because very often it is difficult to judge these sorts of 
issues.  It is therefore incumbent upon the person putting forward the 
allegations to have a much stronger case if in the end we are going to 
accept that case.

For HPB we seem to use a different standard.  It is up to the defenders of 
HPB to prove the allegations to be false.  Despite the fact that internal 
inconsistencies have been identified, especially between the stories as put 
forward by the Coulombs and Solovyoff, and despite the fact that the 
Coulombs and Solovyoff have been shown to be wanting as far as their 
character is concerned, theosophists allow their enemies to hold to the 
argument that in truth and fairness, we cannot take Blavatsky's word 
concerning herself, over the words of these profligates.

Putting forward a mixture of facts (whether it be uncontested letters, or 
corroborated stories, etc.) with allegations ("I claim HPB wrote or did 
this...") is disingenuous, especially if HPB then denies the latter.  Who 
else do we do this to?  If you are going to make allegations, you had better 
be ready to prove them.  For this reason I find it difficult to see any 
difference between Solovyoff making an allegation and someone else then 
repeating the allegation today.  My first thought is: "Okay, if you want to 
use that allegation, prove it!"  If you claim not to believe the allegation, 
you had better be ready to thoroughly debunk the allegation, otherwise, why 
keep it alive?  Allegations are brought forward to be proven or disproven.  
It is disingenuous manipulation to present them with the argument that the 
readers should decide for themselves.   Decide between what?  Facts and 
allegations?  No contest, get the allegations out of my face, I am not 
interested, especially if you are too lazy to try and prove them or have 
some other disingenuous motive for once again repeating them.  If you repeat 
them out of ignorance then consider yourself told.  Repeating unfounded 
allegations is not a moral thing to do.

Bruce

_________________________________________________________________
Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new 
MSN Search! Check it out!