Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00087)

Daniel, Friends, 

Bruce says he concludes that "the intuition of brotherhood does not
appeal strongly" to you, Daniel.  

In your answer, you said several things, yet you did not deny his interesting hypothesis. I can't see too much of a commitment with universal brotherhood in what you write or do.  If Bruce is wrong, why not clarify? 

No one is judging you.  We are exchanging views. 

Are you committed to the good of the movement;  are you willing to help it forget useless gossips;  are you willing to stop exaggerating the differences among different theosophical groups,  and leave aside the continuous circulation of slanders against W. Judge or HPB?

I hope you are. 

Best regards,  Carlos. 

 


De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Wed, 03 May 2006 17:07:12 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World Bruce's projections???? and Ink Blot testing

> 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" 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1146676214.193458.2753.caneria.hst.terra.com.br,10619,Des15,Des15
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 02/05/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4753
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/


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