Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00158)

Friends,

Bruce MacDonald, the editor of FOHAT magazine, writes to Daniel Cadlwell: 

" If you want to live in this nonsense then make a case for its 
relevance. Repeating the slanders is not an argument." 

And I add: "an interesting thing is that Daniel does these things as a volunteer worker."

Carlos. 

De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:24:55 -0700

Assunto:Theos-World Re: "I believe Judge had a good sense of,things when he wrote..."?????

> Daniel,
> 
> Societies are not pulled down from without, but rather from within. The 
> members of the TS had lived through the Coulomb and Solovyoff 
> accusations and were still standing by Blavatsky, even after her death. 
> Had they stuck together, these weak attacks would never have done any 
> damage. It was the doubt planted by Olcott and Besant that made the 
> defenses weak, and the weak attacks relatively strong. If previous 
> historians did not see the damage that Besant and Olcott did, then 
> perhaps they did not have the advantage of over a century of mistakes to 
> observe.
> 
> You say, "And these attacks had NOT been adequately answered and addressed
> up to 1893." How do you answer empty allegations? You make it sound 
> like theosophists should be disproving allegations that no one has made 
> any attempt to prove! Who are the great historians of the past who have 
> proved that these allegations have any merit? What are their names and 
> where are their arguments? Give us the arguments and we will make short 
> work of them.
> 
> There will always be those that doubt HPB, . . . who cares? I want to 
> see the argument proving her quilt. If there are none then why should 
> anyone care what the doubters have to say? Theosophists are not 
> obligated to disprove what has never been proved. Let writer's repeat 
> their silly allegations. It is not the responsibility of Theosophist to 
> disprove empty allegations. If you want to argue otherwise then why 
> "don't you inform us with some cogent reasoning accompanied by some 
> details."
> 
> The only reason that the Coulombs or Solovyoff have any traction is 
> because Theosophist's have given them that traction (because Olcott and 
> Besant erred). Their allegations were empty and spurious then, and they 
> still are. Blavatsky's defenders were put in the position of having to 
> defend her because of Olcott and Besant. If you want to argue otherwise 
> then why "don't you inform us with some cogent reasoning accompanied by 
> some details."
> 
> If you want to live in this nonsense then make a case for its 
> relevance. Repeating the slanders is not an argument.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 


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