Jerry: Teachers & Teaching
Mar 10, 2006 11:25 AM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline
Dear Jerry,
Thanks, brother.
Theosophy is about Truth, as you know.
The motto of the theosophical movement is about Truth, as we know.
HPB wrote many times that Ethics and Truthfulness are of the essence in
Theosophy.
When Paul Johnson writes that she lied, or implies that she lied, that she
was a Spy, etc. (which she denied vehemently and unendingly) he is saying
that her philosophy is the philosophy of a liar, the philosophy of a
fraudulent woman.
This would be no Philosophy. At best, this would be Sophism. Why? Let's
see.
As you may know, the difference between Philosophy and Sophism, in classical
terms, is that the Philosopher lives his teaching as much as he can, while
the Sophist presents the most "suitable" and attractive ideas in a given
moment, without living these ideas.
Ethics and Truthfulness connect the teacher to the teaching, and it also
connect the student to the teaching.
It is not repeating ideas or reading books that connect us to the teaching.
So, by his disguised ways to half-say HPB was a fraud, Paul is trying to
destroy the ETHICAL BASIS of Theosophy, which, as we saw above, is of the
ESSENCE in Esoteric Philosophy.
Summing it up, those who attack the Teachers attack the teaching.
That the attack is disguised does not mean it is no attack. We must examine
what is under the
surface, and that is Occultism, as we know.
I hope that helps.
Peace to all beings,
Carlos.
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@charter.net>
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Johnson Anti-Theosophist
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:50:44 -0800
Dear Carlos,
>Paul's books are no Theosophy. That's what I meant.
>
You are right. They are not about Theosophy. One is an historical
investigation into the identity of HPB's teachers. Another is about
people in HPB's circle. Another is about Edgar Cayce. I don't
understand why this is a problem.
>His texts aim at distorting Theosophy into something fraudulent, or
>semi-fraudulent.
>
Since they are not about Theosophy, how can they be distorting Theosophy?
>Solovyof and the Coulombs were not "taking Theosophy to the public
opinion"
>when they went to the newspapers to attack HPB and the theosophical
movement.
>
Yes, I agree, Solovyof and the Colombs were not taking Theosophy to
public opinion. They were publishing their opinions about HPB (not the
Theosophical Movement), which were not very good. But what does this
have to do with Paul's books?
>On the other hand, having been published by one University Press is no
big
>deal, as we have hundreds of Universities around the world, publishing
hundreds of books
>every year.
>
But how many of them concern the Theosophical Movement? That is why
Paul's books on the Mahatmas is important. It brings them to the
attention of the academic discourse community for discussion.
>Fortunately, his lies about Theosophy and the Masters will not have an
>"academic" future.
>
The book has already been successful in the academic community. Its
future is already assured. As for "lies:" I understand a lie to be a
consciously calculated falsehood. Are you saying that Paul consciously
calculated to demean Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement? If so,
where is your evidence?
Carlos, HPB was a very complex personality and there are published a
whole spectrum of opinions about her. Some are negative, some
positive. My own thesis I wrote for a masters degree was on the
relationship between HPB. and WB Yeats and her influence upon his
writings. It took me seven years to write it that 471 page tome and
during that period I thought of little else but to ponder HPB's nature
and what she was trying to communicate. One thing that I came to realize
is that if HPB's critics are guilty of unjustly villainizing her, HPB's
follows are just as guilty of distorting who she was by blindly
idolizing her. Yeats, who profoundly respected HPB, was also deeply
aware of, and was disturbed by the constant fanaticism that occurred
around HPB and her teachers. He even recounts one fanatic follower's
attempted suicide! Please, let us all take a deep breath and take a
step or two back from all of this craziness. HPB made her contributions
and she died. Opinions about her will come and go. What is important
and lasting is her contribution to the Theosophical Movement. There is
nothing to be gained, and only pain to be reaped by abusing people
because of their opinions.
Best wishes,
Jerry
carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
>Dear Jerry,
>
>Paul's books are no Theosophy. That's what I meant.
>
>His texts aim at distorting Theosophy into something fraudulent, or
>semi-fraudulent.
>
>Solovyof and the Coulombs were not "taking Theosophy to the public
opinion"
>when they
>
>went to the newspapers to attack HPB and the theosophical movement.
>
>On the other hand, having been published by one University Press is no
big
>deal, as we
>
>have hundreds of Universities around the world, publishing hundreds of
books
>every year.
>
>Fortunately, his lies about Theosophy and the Masters will not have an
>"academic" future.
>
>
>As to the theosophical movement, much less.
>
>
>Best regards, Carlos.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@charter.net>
>>Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: Re: Theos-World P. Johnson Ignores Theosophy
>>Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:58:34 -0800
>>
>>Dear Carlos,
>>
>>
>>
>>>Paul did not take Theosophy to the Universities --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Apparently I was not sufficiently clear. Paul's book on the Masters
>>was published by the State University of New York (SUNY), which is a
>>scholarly press. The difference between a scholarly press and a
>>commercial press is that in the former, the manuscript is passed around
>>to other scholars in the field who critically read it and recommend
>>whether the manuscript is worthy of publication or not. I was for a few
>>years a member of the American Academy of Religions (AAR) which is a
>>professional association, mostly of professors of religious studies.
>>There, I met and spoke with several of the professors who read and
>>passed his work.
>>
>>
>>
>>>and I doubt of his books'
>>>actual circulation in Universities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You mean as a text book for students? Well, I don't know one way or the
>>other. Professors in American Universities do pretty much what they want
>>as far as what text books they use. But I do know some professors who
>>have read the book and I have discussed it with them.
>>
>>
>>
>>>What he tried to take to Universities is a completely mundane view of
>>>HPB/Masters,at the personal level, according to which HPB may have been
a
>>>
>>>
>>fraud and the
>>
>>
>>>"Masters" are persons with mudane, worldly goals, not Adepts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>When the book first came out, I openly debated Paul on theos-talk
>>concerning his methodology and conclusions. I'm sure you will find all
>>of this in the archives.
>>So, my own points of disagreement were expressed many years ago and I do
>>not wish to revisit them now. However, as I had already stated below,
>>IMO, the important thing about Paul's book is that it was published by a
>>scholarly press, as opposed to a Theosophical press. If he only
>>published in the Theosophical press, his readership would be mostly
>>Theosophists and sympathizers with Theosophy. By publishing the book
>>with SUNY, he brought an examination of the subject of the Masters to
>>the academic community to be discussed, considered and debated. As a
>>result, there is a growing number of people in the academic community
>>who are becoming interested in Theosophy. I think it is a good thing
>>that academics are becoming interested in Theosophy. Don't you?
>>
>>
>>
>>>Have you seen Theosophy, or Esoteric Philosophy, in his books or
>>>
>>>
>>writings?
>>
>>
>>>Anything more than a peronsalistic "Who's Who"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>His books are not on Esoteric Philosophy. His book on the Masters is an
>>historical *inquiry* into the identity of HPB's teachers. When I want
>>to read on Esoteric Philosophy, I usually sit down with the Mahatma
>>Letters to A.P. Sinnett.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>>carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dear Jerry,
>>>
>>>
>>>Paul did not take Theosophy to the Universities -- and I doubt of his
>>>
>>>
>>books'
>>
>>
>>>actual
>>>circulation in Universities.
>>>
>>>What he tried to take to Universities is a completely mundane view of
>>>HPB/Masters,
>>>at the personal level, according to which HPB may have been a fraud and
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>"Masters"
>>>are persons with mudane, worldly goals, not Adepts.
>>>
>>>Have you seen Theosophy, or Esoteric Philosophy, in his books or
>>>
>>>
>>writings?
>>
>>
>>>Anything
>>>more than a peronsalistic "Who's Who"?
>>>
>>>Carlos.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@charter.net>
>>>>Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>>>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>>>>Subject: Re: Theos-World P. Johnson, Greenpeace & Freud
>>>>Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:20:07 -0800
>>>>
>>>>Dear Carlos,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Johnson has been trying to explain HPB as a semifraudulent woman
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>describe the Masters as non-Adepts. To his mind, there are no
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>metaphysical
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or spiritual mysteries to be solved.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I always finding myself wincing whenever I hear or read someone
>>>>explaining someone else. It is a kind of a dismissal of another
>>>>credibility--an implication that the person in question cannot be
>>>>trusted to explain themselves. I would much rather see a dialogue
where
>>>>the person in question is asked what he/she is trying to do, or is
>>>>thinking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For me, the fact that Paul Johnson comes to the movement with such
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>wildly
>>
>>
>>>>>speculative and mundane theories, and his books are read and
accepted
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>by
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>some for a while (although they were never accepted by any
theosophical
>>>>>publisher, naturally) is, itself, a subject for some self-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>examination
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the movement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Is the value of a book necessarily based upon whether it is accepted?
>>>>Paul published the his book about the Masters through a university
>>>>press. That means that he submitted his writing to scholarly scrutiny.
>>>>What is valuable about Paul's book is that it created a dialogue
within
>>>>the academic community about the existence and nature of the Masters.
It
>>>>is the dialogue--the exploration, not the acceptance, that is
important.
>>>> In the long run, bringing Theosophy into academic circles can do
>>>>nothing but good for the movement. Remember that HPB attracted some
of
>>>>the greatest minds of her time. Those were the days when Theosophy
was
>>>>credible, was seriously talked of among scholars. I would like to see
a
>>>>return to those days. Paul's book was a step in that direction.
>>>>
>>>>Best wishes,
>>>>Jerry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>>>>>
>>>>>PAUL JOHNSON, GREENPEACE AND PSYCHOANALYSIS
>>>>>
>>>>>oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>>>>>
>>>>>Dear Friends,
>>>>>
>>>>>Paul Johnson has been trying to explain HPB as a semifraudulent woman
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>describe the Masters as non-Adepts. To his mind, there are no
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>metaphysical
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or spiritual mysteries to be solved.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is always a question of who's who. He invented the "People's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>magazine"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Theosophy, as if
>>>>>the facts of Adepthood were a fiction -- false facts used perhaps
to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>cover
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>frauds and a "market for tricks", as he suggests in his 1987 text on
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>HPB's
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>'Veiled Years'.
>>>>>
>>>>>He does not perceive that also Jesus, as described in the New
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Testament,
>>
>>
>>>>>had his "veiled years".
>>>>>
>>>>>He does not know, or is not interested, for instance, in the fact
that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>in
>>
>>
>>>>>Carlos Castaneda's books, as in HPB's life, "leaving no traces of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>one's
>>
>>
>>>>>existence in the world" is an active part of the training of
disciples
>>>>>during certain stages of their learning.
>>>>>
>>>>>For me, the fact that Paul Johnson comes to the movement with such
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>wildly
>>
>>
>>>>>speculative and mundane theories, and his books are read and
accepted
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>by
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>some for a while (although they were never accepted by any
theosophical
>>>>>publisher, naturally) is, itself, a subject for some self-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>examination
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the movement.
>>>>>
>>>>>If Paul Johnson would go to the international leadership of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>"Greenpeace"
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>of "Friends of the
>>>>>Earth" and kindly submit to them a new theory, according to which the
>>>>>campaigns for the defense of the Amazon region and forests worldwide
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>are
>>
>>
>>>>>based on fraudulent theories, or in theories "possibly fraudulent",
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>inspired
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>in political motivations,etc., what would be the answer? Would there
be
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>a
>>
>>
>>>>>John Algeo to receive Paul Johnson with his theories at Greenpeace?
>>>>>
>>>>>If Paul Johnson would go to the Psychoanalytical Society and most
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>kindly
>>
>>
>>>>>submit them a brand new
>>>>>and stupendous theory according to which Sigmund Freud was in fact a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>shallow
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>man, unable to explore the depths of human-animal soul (fourth and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>fifth
>>
>>
>>>>>principles), with its unconscious impulses, but that Freud just
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>plagiarized
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>someone else and was really interested in other goals, under the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>cover
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>his psychoanalytical investigations -- what would be the result?
>>>>>
>>>>>If Paul Johnson would go to the Jungian Analitycal circles with an
>>>>>equivalent story about Carl G. Jung, what would be the result?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, Paul Johnson did come to the theosophical movement with this
kind
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>theory, putting himself much above HPB, purporting to unveil the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>"Masters",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>etc., and he had a John Algeo to receive him, and other
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>pseudo-theosophical
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>leaders to open room to his ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>>For me, as for thousands of students worldwide, Theosophy as taught
by
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>HPB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and the Masters is something which is alive. It is experimental. It
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>can
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>be
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>touched, although it can't be touched with physical feet or hands. It
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>can
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>be
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>touched by one's soul, by one's clear mind, by one's inner senses.
>>>>>
>>>>>And, just because Paul cannot "see" or experiment Theosophy, he has
to
>>>>>saythat it is "perhaps a fraud", "perhaps semi-fraud". And
>>>>>pseudo-theosophists find his ideas interesting, possibly because
these
>>>>>ideas offer them an escape from the challenge of LIVING THEOSOPHY in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>their
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>own daily lives.
>>>>>
>>>>>If Paul would investigate Leadbeater, he would see fraud. Yet,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>investigating
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>HPB, he saw nothing; he only projected on his own mind that which he
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>wanted
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>to see.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Unconscious Kriyashakti" is the name of this, as well stated by E.L.
>>>>>Gardner in another context.
>>>>>
>>>>>So the fact that Paul Johnson's ideas still have any circulation in
the
>>>>>outskirts of the theosophical movement, from my viewpoint, is much
more
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>a
>>
>>
>>>>>sympton than a fact in itself of any importance. It is a sympton
that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>we
>>
>>
>>>>>are too gullible, naive and scarcely experiential in our approach to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>>Divine Wisdom. We are open to whatever new theories which promise
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>saving
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>effort to seek universal truth for ourselves, along a steep and
narrow
>>>>>path...
>>>>>
>>>>>Paul Johnson is like those "paparazzi" who try to make revelations
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>about
>>
>>
>>>>>the British Royal family or other "famous" people.
>>>>>
>>>>>For those "researchers" there are no real people in the British Royal
>>>>>family. There's othing "internal", subjective, human. It's only a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>gossipy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>question of "who's who", an issue of personal names and intrigues.
>>>>>
>>>>>C.W. Leadbeater reduced his pseudo-theosophy to this.
>>>>>
>>>>>CWL started the paparazzi-personalistic approach (See, for instance,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>his
>>
>>
>>>>>book "Lives of Alcyone"). And then, decades later, we had Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Johnson,
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>who
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>possibly doesn't even consider himself as a theosophist.
>>>>>
>>>>>And, even though he probably does not call himself a theosophist, he
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>humbly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>puts himself far above theosophists.
>>>>>
>>>>>And he kindly intends to teach to us, for the price of his books,
all
>>>>>mysteries of Theosophy, which we "don't know".
>>>>>
>>>>>He must be proud of his modesty. This is a nice "scholarly" guru, who
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>wants
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>to teach us that HPB was "possibly a fraud" and in this -- ignores
the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>SPR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>1986 conclusions and all the evidences that HPB was a great soul.
>>>>>
>>>>>And Paul, when shown as he is -- someone who denies the most basic
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>assets
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>of the Esoteric Philosophy -- feels attacked. But -- what is he
doing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>to
>>
>>
>>>>>HPB and the Masters?
>>>>>
>>>>>In a deeper perspective, though, he is not attacking the movement. He
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>is
>>
>>
>>>>>just testing it, as John Algeo is -- and, after all, tests tend to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>awaken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the deeper layers of the living process inaugurated in 1875 by HPB
and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>W.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Judge.
>>>>>
>>>>>As to me, tests are welcome. Let's go ahead, then, with an
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>open-minded,
>>
>>
>>>>>sincere debate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>Subject: Theos-World Re: Paul & "The Masters Revealed"
>>>>>>Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:06:37 -0000
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dear Krsanna,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for an opportunity to clarify some points in a rancor-free
>>>>>>context. Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"What Paul may have stumbled on in his book "The Masters Revealed"
>>>>>>>is the people involved in HPB's education. A world-wide network of
>>>>>>>men trying to inspire good people to stand up against tyranny."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>While "network" might fit in a very broad sense, that is *HPB's*
>>>>>>network of inspirers, teachers, etc., it tends to obscure that there
>>>>>>were multiple lineages, multiple secret societies and spiritual
>>>>>>reform movements, with whom HPB was allied and from whom she learned
>>>>>>at different times. Some were much more politically involved than
>>>>>>others. And some *became* much more political *after* HPB got
>>>>>>involved with them. What is especially important to me now, and to
>>>>>>the Church of Light which I recently joined, is the transfer of
HPB's
>>>>>>allegiance from her Egyptian (and Egyptophile European and
>>>>>>American) "brotherhoods" (which involved women too, most importantly
>>>>>>Emma Hardinge Britten) to a completely different set of Indian
>>>>>>sponsors. Godwin's The Theosophical Enlightenment gives a fuller
>>>>>>explanation of this transfer than my books do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Two key figures involved in that transfer were Swami Dayananda,
about
>>>>>>whom I would urge anyone interested in the Masters question to think
>>>>>>outside the box of Theosophical exegesis, and Mikhail Katkov, who
>>>>>>published HPB's Indian writings in Russian. Both were obviously
>>>>>>revered as spiritual Masters by their disciples-- formally so in the
>>>>>>Swami's case and informally so in Katkov's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>HPB always said the adepts were living men who were part of a
>>>>>>>worldwide network that reached far into antiquity. To identify
>>>>>>>living men associated with HPB is not surprising. As far as I can
>>>>>>>tell from recent posts, Paul Johnson excluded the "paranormal" from
>>>>>>>his research to identify some of very real, very human men in HPB's
>>>>>>>association.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Real and human but at the same time in most cases recognized
>>>>>>authorities in various spiritual traditions. Here's a quote from
TMR
>>>>>>that Desmond recently produced that goes to the heart of your post:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In "The Masters Revealed" you set forth the thesis that "most of
these
>>>>>>characters were authorities in one or more spiritual traditions;
>>>>>>others were accomplished writers. They helped prepare HPB for her
>>>>>>mission as a spiritual teacher and/or sponsored the Theosophical
>>>>>>Society from behind the scenes. Although their teachings and
example
>>>>>>affected HPB's development, the extent of their influence was
usually
>>>>>>secret. In a few cases the argument for their acquaintance with HPB
>>>>>>is speculative, but usually the fact of a relationship is well
>>>>>>established and the real question is its meaning. Because their
>>>>>>'spiritual status' and psychic powers are inaccessible to historical
>>>>>>research, these alleged criteria of 'Mahatmaship' are treated with
>>>>>>agnosticism." (p. 14-15) Personally, I see in these few words not
>>>>>>only a lack of personal bias but also an abundance of integrity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks to Desmond for the last line. I would just comment as an
>>>>>>aside to Carlos that it makes no sense to say that because spiritual
>>>>>>stature and psychic powers of figures from the past are not readily
>>>>>>accessible to historical investigation, that we ought not pursue
*any
>>>>>>knowledge whatsoever* about individuals who have been identified as
>>>>>>adepts, because adepts by definition transcend physicality. NO
ONE's
>>>>>>spiritual stature and psychic powers are accessible to standard
>>>>>>scholarly investigation; the obvious implication would be that
>>>>>>historians are committing a spiritual crime to write about *anyone
>>>>>>who ever lived*. Otherwise we are left with special pleading that
>>>>>>says it's OK to ask historical questions about Jesus or Buddha or
>>>>>>Alice Bailey but don't dare ask them about HPB and her Masters
>>>>>>because they are not only beyond reproach but exempt from normal
>>>>>>historical scrutiny. That might play in the ULT or the Adyar ES but
>>>>>>it's Theosophical dogma that no one outside the movement will take
>>>>>>seriously. Why should they? It's like Muslims saying cartoons about
>>>>>>everyone else are fine, but if they're about Muhammad let's have
>>>>>>riots. That just makes the special pleaders look like enraged
>>>>>>fanatics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nobody, to my knowledge, ever claimed that Morya's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>adept lineage terminated with Morya.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've read only an excerpt from Paul Johnson's book, so I don't know
>>>>>>>how clear he was about the limitations of his research. A good
>>>>>>>researcher defines the parameters of the work undertaken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>That was a very important objective of The Masters Revealed, whereas
>>>>>>its self-published predecessor was considerably less clear about
what
>>>>>>was being hypothesized. On the back cover of TMR the first reader
>>>>>>report excerpt quoted (from Hal French of the U. of South Carolina)
>>>>>>says this: "The author has transferred the discussion of Blavatsky's
>>>>>>sources from the realm of the mythical to the historical. He has
>>>>>>given us a well-researched series of capsuled biographies of persons
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>from whom Blavatsky learned, and the nature of her relationships
with
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>each of them. His work brings reasoned conclusions into an area
>>>>>>characterized by vituperative and polarized scholarship. He sets
his
>>>>>>limits well. He has not overstretched his mark nor made excessive
>>>>>>claims for his conclusions." The same could be said for Joscelyn
>>>>>>Godwin whose Theosophical Enlightenment is intertwined with TMR in
>>>>>>several ways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Showing that ordinary people possess extraordinary potentials is a
>>>>>>>worthy study. Albeit, this was not Paul Johnson's objective, and he
>>>>>>>attempted only to identify ordinary people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not quite. How ordinary these people were varies from case to case.
>>>>>>That several were highly regarded as adepts within specific
>>>>>>traditions testifies that they were not seen as ordinary by their
>>>>>>colleagues and associates. It's just that their extraordinariness
is
>>>>>>approached historically rather than religiously, as something to be
>>>>>>established (or rather defined) via evidence and reason rather than
>>>>>>ex cathedra pronouncements or reliance on scriptural authority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Back to politics for a moment, I will just say that my books don't
>>>>>>portray HPB as someone who was motivated primarily by politics, but
>>>>>>rather as someone who was caught up in politics through her
>>>>>>associations with people in India, and lived to regret it. After
>>>>>>leaving India, she appears to have renounced any involvement in
>>>>>>politics and even offered to become an informant on anti-British
>>>>>>activities she had learned about. So it's not a simple yes/no
>>>>>>question as to whether she or her Masters were involved in politics.
>>>>>>Just as it's not a simple yes/no question as to whether the Masters
>>>>>>depicted in her writings were "real." Some were a lot more real
than
>>>>>>others, in terms of the amount of fictionalization involved. No one
>>>>>>has ever doubted the reality of Dayananda; but Theosophists
>>>>>>conveniently forget that HPB and Olcott definitely regarded him in
>>>>>>the adept/Mahatma category when they went to India and only later
>>>>>>changed their opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>>Copa 2006: Juiz @#$%*&!? e mais frases para seu MSN Messenger
>>>>>http://copa.br.msn.com/extra/frases/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Ganhe tempo encontrando o arquivo ou e-mail que você precisa com
Windows
>>>Desktop Search. Instale agora em http://desktop.msn.com.br
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Facilite sua vida: Use o Windows Desktop Search e encontre qualquer
arquivo
>ou e-mail em seu PC. Acesse: http://desktop.msn.com.br
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
_________________________________________________________________
Ligações gratuitas de PC-para-PC para qualquer lugar do Brasil e do mundo
com o MSN Messenger. Saiba mais em
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/default2.aspx?locale=pt-br
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
