Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00004)

>I believe Brenda here may be confusing (1)  the right of someone to have
>whatever opinion he/she chooses with (2) whether  a particular statement
>is correct, factual or wrong.

>I have not been disputing whether Bruce or anyone else has the right and
>freedom to believe/disbelieve as they see fit.  I have been dealing with
>*the statements* made by Bruce.  I really don't care who wrote the
statements.
>I was focusing on the statement and asking is it true or not.

Daniel, I remember you specifically asking why he would choose to believe
Steiner over what HPB and the adepts have written!?! Several times!

>To elucidate a little more.  There are people in the world who still believe
>that the world is flat. I even once met a gentleman who believed such.  As
>far as I am concerned, he has the freedom, right, etc. to believe such if he
>so desires.  But the separate issue is whether the "statement" ( that the
>earth is flat) is true or not.
>
>Brenda also writes:
>
>" Daniel doesn't understand why Bruce sees the way he does or chooses what
>he wishes to say. . . ."
>
>No, I don't understand why Bruce "sees" the way he does.  And for me, this
>is part of why we have such a email group like Theos-Talk.  Here we have
>the opportunity to not only state our own opinions but also to try to
understand
>other points of view.  Hey, isn't that what discussion and dialogue is
>partly about?
>
>Maybe each of us can learn something new, can educate ourselves a little
more?
>I am trying sincerely to understand Bruce's view on HPB and the Mahatmas.
>Maybe I'm  wrong and he is right.  I am open to that but I need some feedback
>in order to process it and possibly arrive at a new position, a new insight.
>If people tell me I'm wrong on some matter, that's fine.  But I also ask
>that they tell me how they know that, what is their reasoning on the matter,
>etc.  Maybe I will learn something but I am not a mind reader.  I can't get
>inside
>their heads.

It's fine not to understand something and to ask for clarification, but
don't you remember asking why he would choose to believe Steiner (and
Harris, was it?) over HPB?

>This is why I have written critiques of K. Paul Johnson's views on the
>Mahatmas KH and M.  I wanted to let other interested readers have access to
>evidence  and points of view that Johnson does not allow his readers
access to
>in his books.  Johnson has the perfect right to believe whatever and publish
>whatever. That is not the issue. Johnson's books have ruffled the feathers of
>many Theosophists and that, in my opinion, is good if it gets them to think
>through the issues involved.  But apparently Johnson doesn't like HIS
feathers
>ruffled hence his attitude toward my criticisms.  But I hope that perhaps he
>has had to think just a little, question his own assumptions a wee bit,
etc. as
>a result of my critique.  I have been told by readers of my critiques that
they
>benefited and that is good enough for me.

What I see as a difference in the two illustrations above is that Johnson
does his ruffling in a standard method, he wrote a book. You choose to do
your ruffling with an audience that may or may not speak their minds, and
then demand answers from the party you are accusing.

>Over the years I have found far too many Theosophists who apparently don't
>like to think through issues.  Oh, it's too manasic, too much concrete mind!
>I get the impression that they don't like their "beliefs" questioned!  30
years
>ago I thought that Theosophists were a more advanced group of people, now
>alas I realize that they are like the rest of us.......human.
>
>Again, Brenda comments:
>
>> Perhaps Daniel has university training and
>>thinks we all should be bound by this.
>
>Nope, not true, Brenda as far as being bound by "university training".
>Each person has to do their own thinking.  I have enough problems
>doing my own thinking.  As they say in Texas, each tub stands on
>its own bottom.  But I do try to do historical research and I do
>try to base my opinions on evidence.  This isn't always easy, I must
>admit but what is a better alternative?
>
>Again Brenda writes:
>
>>We're FREE to choose the second in
>>line if those thoughts appeal to us more. All credit doesn't have to be
>>heaped upon whoever is first, does it?
>
>Yes, you're FREE to do that.  Just as I am free to choose the first in line.
>But that is not the issue I was debating with Bruce.  I was debating with
>Bruce the issue of why one should accept what Steiner (some third party who
>never met Madame Blavatsky) said  about HPB as opposed to accepting what she
>and her coworkers said.
>
>Take the same issue and apply C.W. Leadbeater's name to it.  Rudolf Steiner
>says a number of "negative" comments about Leadbeater.  Maybe Bruce also
>accepts these "negative" statements by Steiner.  I assume you don't.  Yes,
yes,
>you both are FREE to believe differently.  But my focus would be:  how can
>we verify or falsify Steiner's statements? What is the evidence to support
>his statements, etc.etc.?
>
My difficulty here is that you say that you are doing historical research
and yet this is not theosophy. Theosophy is living the teachings. Why do we
have to be bound by your love and yen for history? The rules there are
certainly different than they would be for students of the wisdom.

Just imagine one day when everything will be proven! That day isn't any
more dear to me than the one we're living today where much work remains to
be done. It's still a time of separating the men from the boys, so to
speak. Where do you think the phrase, "the proof is in the pudding"
came from? We gather around the teachings and value them, but JUST THINK, if
there were some new information that drew many, many others to those
teachings - that information wouldn't have to be PROOF. That information
would just have to be a "spark of divine life" calling the hearts and minds
of those who needed that information for a viable, workable (mental) plan
to spur them to action in choosing which side they are on. Do we prefer
life with or without the masters?

This is all I'm really interested in, kind of. I really find history droll.