Theos-Talk Archives (May 1994 Message tl00040)

This is by Eldon Tucker.

----

                 Comments on Paul Johnson's Book

     This is some comments on the quotation from Mark Jaqua's
*Protogonos* and the responses that have come out recently.
     I sense anger and a tendency to come to harsh judgment on both
sides of the discussion.
     Mark calls the book "just plain crazy," which is obviously a
judgment on his part, obviously a statement of opinion. There are
two points that could be discussed. This is apart from all the talk
where he dismisses Paul's book as an attack on Theosophy.
     One is that "There simply is not enough secular information on
the adepts in Theosophical literature to prove a secular identity
one way or the other." This sounds similar to the statement by
Jerry Hejka-Ekins made earlier where Jerry wonders if Paul is too
quick to come to conclusions in his book, rather than just
presenting his historic research.
     The other is regarding the use of the terms *falsehoods* and
*blinds,* about times when Blavatsky may have sought to concealed
information that she did not want to publicly state. We need to be
careful when we use terms that are subject to misunderstanding, and
quick to explain what we mean when we are misunderstood. Would we
say that Jesus *lied* to the public, because of speaking to them in
parables, and that Jesus only told the truth to a few?
     If someone shouts at you in anger, do you shout back in rage
or do you let it pass you by, like water off a duck's back? What is
the proper response? Can we respond to that of value in what comes
from the other, or do we contemplate and respond to perceived
meanness?
     I would not be too critical of spelling or grammar errors.
Especially on the internet, we see much hastily written materials.
We can afford to forgive others when then make writing mistakes,
especially if they do not have word processors with spelling and
grammar checkers. Putting in "sic" to point out errors, and saying
the review is so awful that nothing can top it is an angry
response.
     When something makes me angry, the amount of time that I take
to dwell on, then to forget it, before I respond, decides my
response. If I response soon, and I'm really mad, I can use simple
language that despite the matter of fact language conveys such
anger that it'd turn someone's face red simply to read it. But if
I wait, and respond several days later--or perhaps a week or two
later if it's something big--I can write clearly. The anger is then
gone and I can respond with appropriate mental clarity and
kindness.
     If there are dark feelings, it's good that there is a
discussion and the air is cleared. Any unspoken doubts or suspi-
cions should be articulated. The communication is good.
     With the book, I cannot comment, since I have not seen a copy
of it. I would say that if there is a clear distinction between
facts and conclusions that the book would be ok. This also assumes,
of course, that all facts uncovered are presented, and that the
book is not written with a slant intended to dispose its readers to
a desired opinion.
     In a conflict, there are two rules that I find helpful:

1.   Never respond head on, even if you have overwhelming power,
     because nothing is gained by the destruction of the other.

2.   Do not respond in anger when attacked, but undermine the basis
     for the attack in a friendly way. Do not require the opponent
     to lose face.