Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00085)

Below in Bruce's commentary there is statement
after statement which is more reflective of what is in Bruce's
own mind than giving a true assessment of anything else.

For example, Bruce writes:

==================================================
Daniel has stated that he has never felt compelled to seek out other 
theosophists as collegues.
==================================================

Now did I actually say that?  I don't think I ever wrote exactly what
Bruce is stating.  I guess I need to look back thru my postings.

But then notice Bruce goes a step farther and writes:

==================================================
This implies that the intuition of brotherhood does not
appeal strongly to him.
==================================================

All I can say is flapdoodle. Bruce is talking about something he 
knows nothing about.  

First of all IF Bruce will look at the prefactory remarks to my book 
THE ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY he will see that I mention 
many people who have helped me in my Blavatsky projects.  I would 
consider many of those individuals as my colleagues in one way or 
another.  

Furthermore, Bruce hasn't the foggiest idea about the "intuition of 
Brotherhood" at least as it relates to me.

As far as my "intuition" of Brotherhood, at least I do not go around 
questioning people's motivations and questioning their sincerity or 
loyalty or whatever. 

Instead I try to focus on the subject matter at hand whether it is a 
historical one or a doctrinal one or some other Theosophically 
related topic  but I do not attribute bad motives to other 
Theosophists who are here in this Theos-Talk forum or elsewhere in 
the Theosophical world.  

Then Bruce continues on! 

==========================================================
He must therefore be interested in HPB and her
history for other reasons.  
==========================================================

FOR OTHER REASONS....hmmm

Yea probably all the wrong reasons!  :)

Then he goes on:

============================================================
I think in the end, Carlos is simply trying to point out to Daniel 
that you cannot do justice to HPB if you do not make an attempt to 
understand Universal Brotherhood. 
===========================================================

I am not at all certain exactly what Bruce is attempting to say here.
In fact I really don't know just what Bruce is trying to 
communicate!!!!

To end this posting, I will simply say people can believe whatever 
they want to about me, my motivations, my character.  They can write 
about my lack of understanding of Universal Brotherhood or about my 
intuition on this that or the other.  As far as I can see this is 
nothing more than argument by going AD HOMINEM.

Oh heavens, let's not discuss the Theosophical subject matter but 
instead DISTRACT by using the ad hominem tactic.

When I write on a theosophical subject whether historical or 
doctrinal, I try to cite evidence, text, etc. and I try to present a 
thesis, reasoning, etc. 

I would assume most intelligent readers can take the evidence, look 
at the reasoning, etc. and determine if there is some merit to what 
is presented regardless of whether I am personally a Dhyan Chohan, 
dugpa, or whatever.

I remember when Paul Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED was first 
published.  I had several students of Theosophy tell me that he 
wrote the book to make money or to make a name for himself.  In the 
Theos-Talk archives there are even such postings.

I even had one "theosophist" [?] tell me that Johnson was working 
for the Jesuits.  Well, of course! :)

But even IF all of that was true (they wish!), what does all THAT AD 
HOMINEM "stuff' tell us about the accuracy or truthfulness or 
reasonableness of Johnson's thesis or statements in his book?

Of course the implications were that he had bad motivations and that 
this somehow must discredit Johnson's thesis.

Unfortunately, from almost the very first Johnson was not shy about 
ALSO using the ad hominem tactic on people including me!

I remember when I sent him a critique of his first book which 
I did by the way at his request, he wrote back questioning my 
sincerity!  He knew nothing about me, but apparently had to question 
my sincerity.

Then later when I wrote and published my HOUSE OF CARDS critique, 
apparently he had to end his reply with a bunch of psychobabble 
about I was a heretic slayer and I was working for the theosophical 
organizations to combat his "heresy" and other ad hominem nonsense.

At the time I thought to myself that this ad hominem speculation of 
his really reflected more about him, his thinking process, etc. than 
anything about me.  

Yes, like a ink blot test!!

But even IF I was that terrible heretic slayer does that "fact" 
somehow invalidate my specific criticisms of his statements, etc. in 
his book?

My criticisms of Paul Johnson's books are either valid or not 
regardless of whether I am a heretic slayer or a dugpa or one "bad
--------- ----------"!

And I would suggest that my other critiques, studies, analyses of 
various theosophical historical incidents, etc. are either valid or 
not regardless of whether I am "this that or the other" as Carlos or 
Bruce apparently want to portray me.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc







 









--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> Frank,
> 
> I don't believe Daniel warrants any defence in this case.  Carlos 
is
> simply mirroring Daniels' behavior.  Daniel knows this and will not
> defend himself on principle because if he does he will be 
admitting his
> own guilt with respect to HPB and Judge.  Because of this Daniel 
will
> simply try to mock and chide Carlos into silence, hoping others 
will
> come to his aid with more principled arguments.
> 
> Daniel uses the work of the Coulombs and Solovyoff when editing or
> assisting in the editing of collections of material on HPB.  
In "The
> Letters" we find HPB detailing a sexually promiscuous youth and the
> torturing of a cat to death.   Daniel quite reasonably states that 
he
> does not necessarily believe this "evidence" but, until it is 
proved
> false, neither does he think it should be hidden away and 
forgotten.
> 
> Carlos looks at the evidence that Paul Johnson has brought 
forward. 
> That evidence implies that Daniel may have created false personas 
in
> order to more easily attack theosophical personalities and the 
ULT. 
> Carlos says he does not necessarily believe that evidence, but 
until
> things are cleared up one way or another, neither should it be
> forgotten.
> 
> Daniel has done much work of value putting together a comprehensive
> archive on theosophical material.  This can help both enemies and
> friends of theosophy depending on how that archive is used.  
Daniel has
> stated that he has never felt compelled to seek out other 
theosophists
> as collegues.  This implies that the intuition of brotherhood does 
not
> appeal strongly to him.  He must therefore be interested in HPB 
and her
> history for other  reasons.  I think in the end, Carlos is simply 
trying
> to point out to Daniel that you cannot do justice to HPB if you do 
not
> make an attempt to understand Universal Brotherhood.  In any case, 
I am
> not certain Daniel wants you arguing too strongly that it is wrong 
to
> continue repeating unproven allegations as it puts him in a 
difficult
> position.
> 
> Bruce