Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01171)

Whatever was wrong, wherever it was, has been fixed, so I have
printed out Rich's comments in order to reply to them.

Dear Rich,

I asked for a one-page summary of Blavatskian anthropology,
stating where and how you thought it would be confirmed by
future science.  Your response has no such summary, just a list
of challenges to current anthropology in general.
No mention of HPB is in there at all, so it will hardly do for
the purpose at hand.  Thanks for trying, but as I'm
unsubscribing today I won't be available to be go-between for
the proposed dialogue.

You write, "the major source of your [my] frustration" is the fact
that I "don't feel terribly committed to Theosophy-- the modern
work of HPB" which makes it inevitable that I feel "excluded,
even beat up, by current Theosophists."  Whoa, there!  Do you
mean to say that anyone who is strongly interested in modern
Theosophy, but less than "terribly committed" to it cannot possibly
engage in discussion with "current Theosophists" without
receiving treatment that amounts to being excluded, or even
beat up?  That is a truly damning indictment of Theosophists!
But I don't think it's true at all of the majority.

My experience, on the contrary, is that the great
majority of current Theosophists are NOT "terribly committed"
(nice phrase, thanks) to the Blavatskian interpretation of the
universe.  At most they are committed to interpreting the
universe in a way that *takes account* of HPB.  A large handful of
Theosophists have been outraged by my work and hateful to me.  But
in large and small groups, in Virginia, D.C., Maryland, North
Carolina, California, and even in Wheaton-- ever since my first book
came out, I've been talking about these things to Theosophists and been
consistently welcomed and treated in a brotherly, inclusive manner.  The
ratio of positive to negative treatment accorded me by Theosophists
responding to my work has been at least 100-1.  Only in print and online
have people acted as if they wanted to exclude me and beat me
up-- at most one or two in person out of hundreds.  If
Theosophists were as unified in their orthodoxy as you seem to indicate, there
would be no need for anyone to attack me.  It's precisely
because those who see themselves as custodians of the Only
Accepted Interpretation are *fearful* of my books' influence
that they behave as they do.  Add up all the attacks made
by Theosophists on Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Benjamin Creme,
Greg Tillett, Bruce Campbell, and Peter Washington-- all of
whom have written books that express or imply views of the Masters quite
alien to Theosophists-- and they don't come near the attacks on
The Masters Revealed.  Why, for that matter, did In Search of
the Masters escape being attacked that way?  Not until TMR was
published by an impressive press, distributed widely, favorably
reviewed in a great many places (including a recent one that is
a real coup) did the same ideas I had published years before
suddenly become the great enemy to be destroyed at all costs.
You seem to want to portray the situation as
"all the Theosophists united in agreement against someone who
is not really one of them."  That, I can assure you, is VERY far from
the truth.  The truth is that there is an immense diversity of
views of the Masters among Theosophists, a great many of whom
are not in the least offended or threatened or made angry by my
work.  The few who are extremely offended or threatened or
angry managed to make my life hell for much of 1995.  But
they are, nonetheless, a minority.  Most Theosophists, I think,
are like me, more committed to an ever-expanding quest for truth
than to adhering to a single author's viewpoint, no matter
whose.

You say it is "bullshit" to assert that HPB would differ from
your suggestion that to be a Theosophist means to make an a
prior assumption that Blavatskian Theosophy is correct.  If you
were not so resistant to citations of chapter and verse coming
from someone you perceive as a heathen, I could throw a bunch
of quotes at you.  But why bother?  You go on to assert that HPB really cared
about just a few students, that the ES, and then the Inner
Group, show her real commitments, and that the TS and society
at large were at best side interests.  How elitist!  If HPB was
even one tenth the spiritual giant I believe her to be, she was
overwhelmingly concerned with "the orphan humanity" and not
with a handful of disciples who started to behave like cats in
a bag the minute her back was turned-- more so after she died.

You write sarcastically that you find it "exceedingly
interesting" that I should quote HPB as an authority, cite her
about what is normative in Theosophy.  Well who am I writing to
here?  It's YOU who needs to have HPB's authority dragged in to
convince you.  I'd quote Baha'u'llah to a Baha'i for exactly
the same reasons.  Not my choice at random, or the way
I tend to think.  But when the questions are things like "what
did HPB think about x?" then the obvious authority is HPB
herself.  And there are probably 200 passages that make it
clear that HPB welcomed as Theosophists people who were quite
skeptical of her particular version of theosophy.

You accuse me of rhetoric without substance because I point out
that defining adepts as infallible is equivalent to rendering
them nonexistent.  In fact, I was defending my work against
YOUR accusation that MY definition of adepts as fallible renders HPB's
teachers nonexistent.  THAT was rhetoric without substance.
What started this was your argument that if the SD's
anthropology was wrong, this would indicate that HPB did not in
fact derive it from adepts.  When I replied that this was not
necessarily true, and that no adept in history could be shown
to have had a full understanding of such scientific questions,
you were the one to engage in rhetorical blasts.

There is an interesting discussion going on now on medit-l
about "casting out demons" in the Bible, and how this relates to
attitudes and emotions rather than invisible beings,
etymologically.  Thus to cast out a demon is to cast out an
attitude.  Well, Rich, I really despair of any discussion with
you unless you are willing to consider casting out some
attitudes that are abundantly visible in your posts.  To name
them would probably be superfluous, but I'll give you a hint:
they all have to do with feeling not just authorized but
encouraged to display blame, condescension, sarcasm, anger, and
aggression to anyone who doesn't see HPB and Theosophy your
way.  Please reconsider.  I'll try if you will-- or if you
won't for that matter.