Feb 11, 2006 10:49 AM
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@...> wrote:
> robert_b_macd wrote:
> > I argued that Carlos is not worshipping Blavatsky but rather
> > demonstrating respect by protecting her from those who would throw mud
> > on her outer garments.
> The use of the capital "T" in "Teacher" goes WAY beyond respect, and
> into worship. He has stated that we shouldn't be allowed to say
> bad about Blavatsky, or repeat anything bad, even if the purpose is to
> refute this. We should just bury the past. But the past exists. To deny
> the past is to deny truth. And Blavatsky was far from perfect. Even the
> Mahatmas said so, although the also said that they, themselves, were
> perfect either.
Your characterization of Carlos's position is unfair. Carlos himself
writes in post 29673 the following:
"The main question is publishing obvious LIES against HPB.
Nothing against critizing her or talking about her many PERSONAL
faults, which the Masters did, by the way."
His concerns are fairness to a woman's memory. Even if you think he
is over-zealous, it does not follow that he worships her. That is
simply a non-sequitor and thus simply your humble opinion on the matter.
> Of course, anybody who denies that the Holocaust took place isn't
> interested in historical truth, anyway, only their own hatred.
This is simply a slur and again another example of your humble
opinions concerning your fellow man.
> > I showed why one would be motivated to protect
> > one's fellow man in general, one's Spiritual Teacher in particular.
> > Bart countered with the following three arguments:
> > 1. All humans sin, Blavatsky is human therefore Blavatsky has sinned,
> > and 2. Blavatsky is guilty until proven innocent, and 3. It is fair to
> > accuse sinners of particular crimes and repeat these accusations for
> > all eternity.
> I never said anything even remotely resembling that, and I defy you to
> find where I did.
This is an interesting challenge and I accept. Naturally the above
was a paraphrase as I do find it difficult to follow a natural train
of thought in your writing (my defect I am sure).
Bart wrote the following:
"Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all
in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H."
- Koot Hoomi.
and he also wrote:
"Uncharitable? Does that mean telling the truth? Carlos treats
Blavatsky as perfect and above all criticism. Not even the Mahatmas
considered themselves to be either."
This was all due to Carlos expressing his understanding that
Theosophists have a duty to defend their "sacred Teacher".
What are the implications of such statements.
1. If Bart believed that this duty existed, he would never have
objected to it so vehemently. Consequently Blavatsky's reputation is
not the responsibility of the various Theosophical Societies and their
members. As reputations clearly need not be respected as there is not
anyone responsible for defending them, it follows that "3. It is fair
to accuse sinners of particular crimes and repeat these accusations
for all eternity."
2. How do we know Blavatsky is a sinner. If Mahatmas are used as a
standard for the perfected human, and even they are capable of making
mistakes (I suspect we are only talking of minor sins), then it
follows that all humans must sin. If Blavatsky is human then she must
be a sinner. This takes care of argument "1." above and leaves only "2."
3. In Bart's world where allegations can be rehashed over and over
again with impunity, it follows that the only way to dispose of
allegations is to turn them from an allegation to a false charge. The
onus thus falls on Blavatsky to disprove every one of the allegations
brought against her. As we are speaking of reputations here, and
allegations can be every bit as damaging as proven facts, this can be
paraphrased, "2. Blavatsky is guilty until proven innocent."
That about sums it up.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application