Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00748)

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Dear Bruce:

	RE:  DEFENCE OF HPB.---"Let the reader decide for himself"

all points clear and direct.  

I observe that those who decry HPB are in fact attacking THEOSOPHY  --  I
believe the importance of her TEACHINGS makes a great difference.  

Those writings are all considered by some as "exoteric."  But the fact is
that they conceal the ESOTERIC.

The "esoteric" always underlies and provides a "skeleton" for the exoteric
that all can read.

Many opinionated debates revolve around singular personal opinions as to the
meaning of 'contradictions' and 'paradoxes.'  Some desire to convince others
of their accuracy in this.  

The SCIENCE, and the several great exoteric religions of these days, try to
do this without providing the freedom of discovery and logic of contrast to
their adherents.  In contrast, THEOSOPHY always encourages individual
freedom of study and independence.  By this process, the "exoteric" rind
becomes penetrable to the student.  Then the central inner core of WISDOM
[or the truth about things and their inter-relationship] becomes first
noticeable and then clear as the Laws of tolerance, life, and interaction
are seen to be ever and always active, and impersonal.

It may be observed that SCIENCE [as facts provable by any one -- not its
hypotheses or theories] unite our world into one brotherhood.  The several
"exoteric" religions of the world have been altered in the last few years to
accommodate this non-exclusive factor that has always been in place, of
impersonality and universality of action.

As we spend time on those, we loose that same good time in study and
discovering the INNER MEANING of THEOSOPHY.  We retard ourselves.  But all
observations show that our Universe embodies an urge to know, to advance in
wise action, and to "spiritualize" itself so-to-say.  The limits of "form,"
and the temporary intelligences, thus experienced by the ONE SPIRITUAL
CONSCIOUSNESS WITHIN each of us are reconciled. 

Should we not also ask the reader to do his own study of the writings HPB
left us ?

Ask the reader to check out the logic and philosophy embedded in HPB's
writings.  Are those actually in existence? Or are our own: 1) mental, and
2) emotional "filters" set to consider all 'differences' as actually errors
of FACT ? How do we develop impersonality so as to do that ?

Also, do we not need to note that the Masters of WISDOM certified their
participation in those writings.  That is a high endorsement.  Are we in any
way qualified to decide who is a "Master" or not ? How would an
undergraduate rate his Professors, or the Deans and Chancellors of a
World-University.  Yet THEOSOPHY says we are already enrolled in such a
system of personal and individual self-improvement. [This implies the
immortal nature of the Monad (Atma-Buddhi) at the core of our composite and
ever reincarnating being.]

If we are all students, and if we are (as always, self-willed) and "on our
own," then we have much work to do in this present incarnation and specially
so, as we are living so close to the latest presentation of the universal
TEACHINGS.

ISIS UNVEILED shows the history of Theologies down the ages.  It deals with
the metaphysical history embedded in:  "In the beginning...." and shows that
"GOD" is inclusive of all manifestation and guides all evolution through
rules and regulations (Karma) that are impartial and apply to all. This
actually is BROTHERHOOD in action, and it may be seen to be working at all
times now as it has always done continuously and uninterruptedly in the
past.

It explains why Jesus is said to have observed to his disciples:  "Know ye
not that ye are gods?"  [ John 10,  34-5]   To be logical and exact, "GOD"
is totally inclusive of all things past, present and future.  "GOD" is SPACE
immeasurable.  The "highest, noblest "principle" in each of us as a ray of
that ONE, SUPREME DEITY. 

One  might observe that it is curious and paradoxical to doubt or quibble
over this.  Yet, pursuing this fact: Why is it that we can do that ?

We may observe Man and Nature [GOD] embody the same "principles:"

SPIRIT			Atma  		"Father in Heaven"

WISDOM		Buddhi		"the Son" of that "Father in Heaven"

RATIONALISM	Manas		"Individual" consciousness ["I am
					the impersonal, just, and true I"]

EMOTIONALISM	Kama		Desires, passions, Personality" "I am
					what I feel" -- sometimes
irrationally --
					the temporary, always changing "I"]

LIFE PRINCIPLE	Jiva		Prana (breath) is that portion of 
					universal Jiva we presently use]

ELECTROMAGNETIC   FORM  	ASTRAL BODY	
					Linga Sarira which forms the basis
of the

PHYSICAL BODY	MATERIAL FORM
					Sthula Sarira or organic body 

	[see  S D   I  157;  II  596]

ISIS UNVEILED further shows how physical SCIENCE, deriving all aspects of
physical matter from its underlying emotional, mental and spiritual basis,
can advance by taking these into account. 

The SECRET DOCTRINE offers from the archives to the Universal University an
historical survey of the MANIFESTATION OF A WHOLE UNIVERSE, and in
particular of our solar system and of our EARTH.

It then proceeds to give details about the EVOLUTION OF THE PRESENT PHYSICAL
FORM OF MAN and its early progress -- showing that the forms of the animals
derive from man's.  The "ape-form" was developed long ago by an error in
cross-breeding.  It affirms that man's intelligence is not derived from
animal-intelligence.  Fossils are not an index of change or growth in the
power to think.

If these ideas do not inspire us to study and investigate our own
capacities, what else can and will? 

The KEY TO THEOSOPHY and The VOICE OF THE SILENCE give us the history of
those who seek in these present days and years [in the same ancient "Path"
and "Way"] to spiritualize their lives, to discover the "esoteric" within,
and to realize we are all "Gods in the making."

Best wishes,


Dallas
 
========================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce MacDonald
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 10:25 AM
To: 
Subject: Let the reader decide for himself


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