Re: RE: DEFENCE OF HPB == Esoteric or Exoteric ?
Jan 18, 1999 05:51 AM
by Jerry Schueler
>I consider it a pressing duty for all who have benefited from HPB
>to challenge anyone who dares criticize or condemn her in any
Dallas, although this may be good-intentioned, it does poor
service to HPB, and she would be the first to say so. A little
of the criticism is deserved. I have yet to see anyone on
this list "condemn" her in any way.
>They ought to be asked for sources and proofs - point-blanc. And
>so far, there have been none that are substantiated. I have
>consistently done this for years a few answers and those who did
>were only able to offer secondary or tertiary "sources."
This, as you well know is false. Both Rich and I have "proved"
beyond anyone's doubt that her Tibetan Buddhism was a bit weak
in some areas and wrong in a few others. If quoting sources
isn't proof, then nothing can be and you are like an ostrich with
its head in the sand seeing only your own images of reality (which
I trust is not the case).
>The Philosophy of Theosophy has never so far been successfully
>criticized or attacked philosophically or ethically. This ought
>to be noted carefully.
Here again your are so wrong as to sound almost silly. Go to
your nearest bookstore or library and read some of the books
published against her. They may not change your viewpoint,
but they certainly are successful in the public's eyes. Why do
you think that the TS membership is so low (far less than 1%
of the public after over 100 years). Another example, closer
to my own background is Mary Baker Eddy, who lombasted
Theosophy almost as nastily as HPB lombasted Christian
Science. Ask any Christian Scientist and they will tell you
that Eddy's criticisms are "successful."
>If we neglect this (her defense), then we to that extent (by our
>silence) agree to those insults being continued - and they are
>not necessarily directed at Her, but also at the Masters !
So far, your "defense" has done about as much good as my
criticisms have done. On the whole, I like and respect her works
very much. However, when I study other religions and philosophies
and compare them against her work I occassionally find a
mistake in her work. I posted two glaring and obvious errors in
the Inner Group Teachings, for example, and received back
not a single word from anyone on this list. Those interested
obviously checked it out, discovered I was right, and then just
ignored it. Rich and I have showed that she was in error about
the Red Caps and probably about the Dugpas, and except for
name calling and emotional eruptions no real defense was
offered, nor could it be. This is how you and other "fundamentalists"
handle real criticism.
>It is, in my esteem, our individual Karma that acts as a "test" -
>an "occult test", please, to see if we are truly alert and truly
>grateful to Her and to the Great and ancient Masters of Wisdom to
>whom we owe all that we have so far become, and for what we have
>received and profited by.
You apparently believe that if you stick by Blavatsky in spite of
obvious and ligitamite criticism, the Masters will come to you
with thanks and praise for your loyalty and steadfastness. Perhaps
the real "test" is to see if we know how to think for ourselves?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application