Nov 14, 1995 05:29 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
>>So while she is not saying "I actively misled people about the
>>Masters" here although other evidence points in this
>>direction she is definitely saying that Theosophists have
>>developed a mythological view of the Masters she saw it
>>happening and did nothing to stop it. But she wasn't just a
>>passive nonentity in all this; in fact she fanned the flames
>>but later regretted it. This was more than she was
>>willing/able to admit.
> This quote doesn't do it for me either. Yes I see her
>expressing regret for not doing enough "remaining too
>passive" but I don't see that to mean that "she did nothing to
>stop it" and I certainly don't see how you can read into this
>quote that she "fanned the flames."
I don't. That's what I see in history.
For the sake of communication it would help for you to make
a distinction between when you are interpreting a quote and when
you are giving your view of history. If your point is that HPB
"fanned the flames" then I would expect you to supply a quote
that makes that point for you. Showing me oranges to prove the
existence of apples doesn't do it for me.
> Is this a supposition on your part or do you have a quote
> from her or Sinnett showing that she "knew" these letters would
> be published? Remember these letters were not published
Not published as is but used for the writing of "Incidents in
the Life." So the information in them would be published; HPB
alludes to this in the letters.
That stirs up another can of worms since HPB was not in
favor of Sinnett writing ~Incidences~ in the first place and
what cooperation she gave was under duress. As a result of her
non cooperation the book is a mass of inaccuracies. But I
suppose you believe that this was by HPB's design?
> 3. Allow yourself to be co-opted by the IC. To be molested
> can: 1. Thumb your nose at the inner circle and continue to act
> according to your conscience. 2. Act according to our
> and allow yourself to be hurt by their molestations.
and 03 eventually realize the worthlessness of their approval
and get over the hurting.
You've got the idea.
> You can't expect to make rules for these things. You had a
> choice to respond or not to respond. But suddenly choosing not
> to respond in the middle of a debate doesn't look to good.
But once I respond the "rules" are made by my antagonist and
all I can do is play by them and look good?? or decline and
not look too good?
No. Theos-l seems to be an even playing field. No one is
at a disadvantage or an advantage by virtue of the medium and no
one has the power of "making rules." Your antagonist
interesting choice of words can suggest rules but so can you.
However it is true you may or may not end up "looking good"
but that would be because of your responses not the medium.
> Why not? The more relevant question is why should I? What is
> to be gained? At what cost to me in time and energy? Who will
> benefit? The overwhelming consensus of people who have advised
> me in private email is-- forget it.
> Those are great questions to ask *before* making the first
20/20 hindsight. If I had realized the long-term nature of
that interrogation/debate whatever I wouldn't have started.
But of course this was not clear at the outset.
I've wondered why you started in the first place. I figured
that you must be doing it for the education. By the way my
responding to you is an equal expense of time and energy.
> I guess. But do you not care whether she took the trouble to
> seek out experts in the spiritual traditions she wrote about
> to learn from them firsthand?
Even though if she did not do so this renders her a liar on a
much bigger scale than my books suggest?
How so? With a few exceptions such as the ~Chaldean Book
of Numbers~ one can pretty much follow up on the sources she
gives. I once wrote a paper for an undergraduate class showing
how the mythological character Prometheus was used in different
ways from Aeschylus to Byron--sometimes as a Satan figure and
sometimes as a savior figure. The insight I gained in order to
write this paper in the first place was from my theosophical
studies not from my Professors. Of course I quoted from various
works to support my points. My professor never asked me to
append an explanation as to where I got the insights. It was
enough that I had them and it was enough that I was able to
support them by quoting the books. Why should anyone ask any
more of HPB? She made her points and she supported them with
evidence she drew from the various religious philosophical and
scientific literature. If she studied with "Mahatmas" that is
between her and the Mahatmas and should make her writing of
better quality. I studied theosophy before writing that
undergraduate paper. That made no difference to the Professor.
He is looking for how I supported my points. Who HPB studied
with makes no difference to me. I'm looking for how she
supported her points.
This week will be the last that I respond to any questions on
the list about my Theosophical books.
Sorry to hear that. I felt that we were just getting
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application