Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00231)

In message <9611092307.AA05500@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins
<jhe@toto.csustan.edu> writes
>
>AB
>>>> the most devastating attack upon the supernatural origin
>>>>of both the letters and their authors is Who Wrote the Mahatma
>>>>Letters?, by H.E. & W.L. Hare (1936) - a critique which has
>>>>yet to be rationally rebutted.

This is a quote from R.A.Gilbert's Preface to "Kooy Hoomi Unveiled" and
not my comment - I merely posted it.  Just for the record. AB.

Because I post a quotation, it does not follow that I necessarily
support it 100% - a point which many fail to appreciate (but not JHE,
BTW!).
>
>DC
>>>In my opinion, this book by the Hare brothers was rationally
>>>rebutted in a series of 12 articles or so by Dr. H.N. Stokes.
>
>AB
>>I cannot help but note from your bibliography that a very large
>>number of your citations are from very obviously "theosophical
>>establishment"  sources.  I also note from your web site notice
>>that you are looking explicitly for PRO-HPB material.
>
>JHE
>Putting aside the pros and cons of the Hare critique for a
>moment, I think Alan's comment immediately above suggests a
>deeper issue that I feel needs attention:  Are we to assume that
>"PRO-HPB material" is necessarily any more or less scholarly or
>accurate than ANTI-HPB material, or even NEUTRAL-HPB material?
>If we are to dismiss PRO-HPB material as biased, then ANTI-HPB
>material must also have a bias.  So called NEUTRAL-HPB material
>may also have hidden biases, or may be a product of poor
>scholastic methodology--even when it is published by an academic
>press.

Again, I am not familiar with the details of the Hare critique.  Indeed,
this discussion arose because I asked a question or two and no one on
the list seemed able to offer any answers.  Bob Gilbert (and Arthur
Lille!) offered some, and I posted them.  As to their merits, I am not
qualified to judge.

My remarks concerning the nature of Dan Caldwell's references were not
intended to suggest anything more than a noticable or seeming lack of
balance in them.  OTOH, maybe the Pro-HPB material was more prolific.

So, your para above re biases is of course relevant to a serious
historical study.  It seems to me from your post, though, that such
serious and/or academic studies that have already been made may not have
resolved the conflict.

Serves me right for seeking truth.

Alan :-)
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk