Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00100)

Daniel,

If I understand your last e-mail correctly, the question originated from 
the correspondent and the reply was yours.

I really have little to add.  Obviously ETS reprinted the pamphlet to 
ensure this valuable archival resource was not lost to researchers.  
Without this type of material, all that would be left are the vague 
accusations of HPB's detractors with nothing to rebut said accusations.  
All I wondered about was who within the Movement believes anything these 
swindlers have to say?  If nobody, why do we feel obligated to repeat 
their lies?  I believe Judge had a good sense of things when he wrote:

"In the years that are gone, necessity existed for repelling mean 
personal attacks on H. P. Blavatsky's character.  To take up arms in her 
behalf was wise.  Now her works remain.  The necessity for constant 
repulse of attacks on her does not exist.  Judgment can be used in doing 
so.  Loyalty is not thrown to the winds when good judgment says there is 
no need to reply.  One of the best replies is to carry on the work in 
the noble and altruistic spirit she always pointed out . . ."
                   - Williaim Quan Judge, Lucifer, Vol. XIII, December, 
1893, p. 305.       (Quoted in Theosophia #139)

Regrettably, it is now the Movement that keeps alive these old attacks 
through some misplaced sense of honesty and truth.  In order to give an 
appearance of fairness we point to these lies that no reasonable person 
accepts as if it is somehow our duty to disprove them once and for all 
before they are dropped all together.  Of course this is backwards, it 
is up to the detractors to give good evidence that they should be 
accepted.  If a member of the Movement wants to bring up the lies of the 
Coulombs or Solovyoff, then do the work needed to prove their 
truthfulness, otherwise why bother?  The archives are being maintained, 
the evidence is not going anywhere.  Such nonsense can only inspire 
doubt in the uninformed.  As for those outside the movement, what does 
it matter what they think or say?  Arguments by them can easily be 
rebutted, and unfounded allegations ignored.

A hypothetical situation could be made by creating an example that 
involved a member of our own group here on Theos-Talk.  What if a member 
of Theo-Talk was accused of fraudulently creating noms de plume in order 
to attack the ULT, etc.?  There is no reason that anyone on Theos-Talk 
could not continue to bring up such accusations in perpetuity, at least 
until the accused proved beyond a doubt that he was not guilty.  Should 
he have to make such a proof?  According to those who support the 
relevancy of the Coulomb and Solovyoff letters, he does.  If that is 
true, before too long we can fill this forum with gossip and innuendo 
that will have to be taken seriously.

Bruce