From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 04:54:22 -0500 From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Amazing article on SD and evolution I have to say that the article from this January's THEOSOPHY WORLD magazine, "Root-Races and Geologic Periods" by William A. Savage, is an example of the inspiring and thought-provoking work that may be done by those who study the ORIGINAL teachings of Theosophy and compare them to modern currents. I found Savage's work a remarkably clear exposition of a topic which gets little notice but deserves much more careful attention. As the author points out, modern medicine, biology, and physics have made a considerable approach to the esoteric teachings of HPB and her Teachers -- we should expect the same for archeology. This will be particularly so if we, alert Theosophists, can make this approach easier by studying the original teachings, popularizing them (in MODERN language) and making a definite attempt to engage current secular thinkers in a dialogue, either in person or print. Bravo to Mr. Savage! Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 13:14:26 -0500 From: "Richard Ihle" Subject: Re: Amazing article on SD and evolution I don't quite get it. I agree that the article is important and thought-provoking. The part I don't get is how it shows that modern archeology is approaching HPB's teaching so much. The basic assertion of the article, or at least it seems so to me, is this: ". . .science and THE SECRET DOCTRINE are in agreement on sequences and many events in the fossil record." Unfortunately, the only example of similarity of sequence given is the agreement that dinosaurs left the scene before the rise of the mammals, presumably including semi-modern (4th root-race) or modern (5th root-race) humanity. Is this such an important point of "agreement"? After all, either the dinosaurs left first or they didn't--a fifty-fifty chance. Another thing to consider, of course, is that science has the event occurring 50+ million years before HPB did. The article proceeds to explain this by calling into question radiometric dating--i.e., the possibility that radioactive decay started out slowly and then speeded up to its current pace. The author says we must therefore be "bilingual," converting, for example, a SD time of 18 million years ago into its "scientific equivalent" which would be 130 million years ago. Interesting. It would have been even more interesting, however, if the author could have shown how modern archeology is now starting to question its own radiometric dating systems (I don't know if they are or are not). Then, in my opinion, the article sort of disproves its basic contention about agreement regarding sequences of events. We learn that humans and dinosaurs actually ~were~ on the planet together--in fact, the 3rd root-race and dinosaurs disappearing together as a result of the same planetary cateclysms. Granted, humanity had not yet "began to separate into two sexes" at this point; however, it is hard to envision modern science and HPB smilingly shaking hands on this mutual knowledge. So anyway, while I liked the article, I didn't think it necessarily showed that modern archeology is making a "considerable approach" toward what is contained in THE SECRET DOCTRINE. Ditto for its passing mention of modern medicine, biology, and physics which are supposedly "approaching more the thinking of the wisdom tradition" because of the advent of holistic medicine, morphogenetic fields and quantum consciousness [?]. Thus, while perhaps I "didn't quite get it" enough to be as "inspired" by the article as Rich was, at least I thought it was an interesting stretching exercise. . . . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 20:06:00 -0800 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: Re: What's Missing from our Groups? John: > You made some interesting comments and have raised some ideas > which are indeed worth focusing on. And I've come up with a number of things I'd like to say in reply to you too. Unfortunately, there were enough of them that I ended up writing an article, so you won't read them until it gets published. > Books in general are simply a collection of the authors thoughts, > and depending on the power of the author to communicate they can > themselves (the books) be a world of there own. Yes, they contain their authors' thoughts, and sometimes those thoughts are quite a bit more than we're ready for, as in some of the ideas of KH and M. And books can have more than the author consciously intended to write, to the extent that it uses symbolic language, symbolic thought, which can be saturated in extra meanings. > Certainly the Secret Doctrine has value in what is printed and > with careful study any student will find those valuable parts > where the writer states such things as: "The Ancient Wisdom > Says..." Agreed. There are ordinary passages, and some special gems to be found in the literature, some glimpses into the Depths. > I am sure we could take such parts and present them more clearly > but then is this not exactly what Besant/Leadbeater etc. tried > to do and in many cases made fundamental mistakes? They were taking what they had learned and building on it. That's the same as any of us may do. The problem may be that they did not continue to ground themselves in further studies, as they started to write and teach, and so may have drifted away in terminology and sometimes in basic ideas. And a portion of what they said came from psychical investigations, which can be unreliable and highly subjective, a far inferior method of gaining information than the direct training from Mahatmas with actual knowledge and experience. > A worthwhile exercise for the student however but one that must > be examined not only from an intellectual point of view but also > from an intuitional as you so rightly point out. There are, as you suggest, different faculties of understanding that can be applied to the study, including regular intellectual study and intuition. > However the Secret Doctrine was written by a group of authors who > are far more clever than most anyone reading the Secret Doctrine > at first realizes. Yes, there's quite a lot to be found in it. And it's important to learn to get a feel for the "depth" to various materials, to know how deep the veins of gold are in them, awaiting mining. > Read through the Secret Doctrine, and we find that while the > intellect is busy focused on the points being elucidated by the > author, if one opens awareness a little more they will see that > there is another interpretation that is going on in a different > part of our consciousness... There are multiple levels to read and understand it at. Some learning happens in us, almost behind our backs, almost without our conscious awareness. I'd consider it to be *in addition to* the intellectual learning, something co-arising rather than being something *instead of* our ordinary study. > In fact if we are aware of it we are able to perceive quite a > different story evolving. It is this that in my opinion is where > the real value of the Secret Doctrine lies. There's value to every level of the learning. Even if we were only to have an intellectual study, we'd benefit. > This is, in my opinion a common way that much of the real > learning goes on. Much of what is truth is incomprehensible by > the mind and is easier imparted as a set of symbols which have > much more meaning to the subconscious or higher mind. The important term here is *symbolic*. There is, I think, a whole different way of understanding things in terms of symbolic thought, and our study of THE SECRET DOCTRINE can help us train in it. > Most, if not all the lower mystery schools taught in this manner. > Of course none of it is any good to us in an incarnation unless > we of have expanded our own awareness to be able to perceive > intuition and work in parts of our consciousness beyond simply > the mind. There's different ways to train in this. One is in psychological studies, learning to interpret and understand the language of dreams. Another is in a study of theosophical doctrines as we keep having to relearn what we thought we knew and rethink things freshly each time. > Thus it is vital that we have also taken to heart what HPB urged > her students, that is the need to KNOW ONESELF. That in itself > is many life times work for most of us. Another way of putting "self knowledge" is understanding how life in general and the universe works, since we're microcosms of the macrocosm. And since we inseparable from the rest of life, as we learn different things about ourselves, we also learn about corresponding things in the external world. > can go from life to life re-reading the same books (or > thereabouts) but are we any better off? Especially when in a > different level of consciousness we already KNOW it all. Far > better we spend our time bridging the gap between the "lower" and > "higher" consciousness. I don't see it as an either/or situation. There may be dry periods when we put aside the intellectual study and concentrate on other things. And there are other times when we're deeply enriched by new ideas and intellectual work. In any case, we're always at work "bridging the gap", the antaskarana or bridge between higher and lower manas, the link between the higher self and our ordinary personal self. > All that said I also admit that we are not all of the same > temperament so the above works are not going to appeal to > everyone. True. Being of different temperaments is like "phases of life", only on a bigger scale. We may have an entire lifetime with a particular slant or bias, fulfilling a particular need, where we ignore or neglect certain studies and areas of activity. > Blavatsky and her teachers brought us modern theosophy or > neo-Platonism as some would call it. They did there best to keep > the spark alive and to see it burn on for another 100 years, or > perhaps longer as best it could, in the hope that it would make a > difference. Like anything we do in life, there were multiple motives, intents, purposes. One was to give a hundred-years push to western culture. Another was to plant seed ideas for a two-thousand-year cycle. A third was to open ajar yet another door to the Lessor Mysteries. A forth to stem the rising tide of materialism (and Spiritualism). And there were perhaps others as well. We've heard that KH and M were the only Mahatmas interested in such a project as the T.S. Perhaps they wanted to make a point that such efforts were worth e effort, and to encourage their peers to undertake similar efforts? > Blavatsky had already decided that the Theosophical Society was > not going to do what she had hoped but at least it was a movement > that could take some of the ideas on to individuals who had a dim > spark which was easily re-kindled upon reading her works. She > started a different group, as I am sure you all are aware of > which she hoped would be made up of more dedicate members who > would see the work continue. Or perhaps she simple did what she did because she could not help it. There was work to be done and she simply did what she had to do. Certainly there would be hope that things would succeed, but the work is still done, with unwavering love and dedication, regardless of outcome. There were different aspects to the work. The aspect dealing with the Lessor Mysteries had to be rechannelled into the Esoteric Section and then the Inner Group. The public work and general dissemination of ideas into the west were still being carried on by Judge. And Col. Olcott was busy reforming Buddhism and life in the East. > Almost a soon as Blavatsky died, and with it the contact between > humanity and her Adepts the Theosophical Society started to > disintegrate. In the public eye it did. Whether it continued for a few more generations depends upon the particular variant of Theosophy that you subscribe to. In the Point Loma view, the succession continued through Judge, Tingley, and Purucker. In the ULT view, it continued through Crosbie; the Adyar view had yet another lineage. > Oh yes the numbers of the members increased for a few years but > that soon changed also. The society for the next 30 or 40 years > went through several upheavals and changes. Teachings which were > commonly taught for a number of years were later hidden away with > some embarrassment as it became obvious they were completely > incorrect and we saw, largely because of these different teaching > and interpretations much division and splitting of the original > Theosophical Society. Sounds like you're talking about the Adyar T.S. The other Societies had problems of their own as well. > This has lead to all sorts of confusing teaching for the last 100 > years and we now find our libraries full of these Neo-Blavatsky > teachings which make some pretty strange claims and > interpretations of what she actually did teach, which is sad in > itself as all her teachings are there for anyone to study. This is one reason why I like to study Purucker, because of his particular approach in presenting Theosophy. He teaches the material in a manner that encourages intuitive insight, in comprehending things without directly being told, and in learning to get at one's inner source of the Teachings, one's inner teacher. > Perhaps it would be clearer if such authors made it clear that > the books they wrote were simply the outcome of their current > study and their impressions as they understood them when writing > the books it would help. But it's just human nature, and a natural temptation, to use our own thinking to extrapolate what we've learn, and consider both to be Theosophy. We could all use better clarity regarding the dividing line between what we've learn, what we've actually been told, and our one imagination. The dividing line is not easy, because the theosophical doctrines are interrelated and things are continually coming together, getting associated, being found to be connected in our thoughts. When we put two things together that we've learned, is that connection an implicit theosophical teaching that we've been given, or it is our own imagination? > After all we grow and learn but how often does an author take a > book off the shelves or out of publication because they have > grown ad learn that not all it contained was correct. Yes, we grow and see things differently over time. So it's quite possible if we wrote a book on Theosophy a decade ago, we might disagree with it on rereading it today. But for those ideas of ours based on the actual Ancient Wisdom, I'd suggest, that our learning and growing *enhances* our previous learning, gives us more general rules to replace what we've learned before, and left us feeling we know more of something true, rather than feeling we've learned something different, something true that replaces our old, false ideas. > Now do not get me wrong, I am not anti Theosophical Society or of > the works of many of its students as I may have given the > impression of. The Theosophical Society has changed much in the > last 40 odd years and has some spark yet left in it that I do > find worthwhile. I'm still active in the Adyar T.S., as well as in various other theosophical activities and projects. Our work and loyalty, I think, is not to this or any theosophical group as a group, but rather to the bodhisattva vow, to the inner impulse to make the spiritual a living reality on this earth. > I am an active member in my branch in New Zealand. However I do > wonder where we are going today as I look around and get quite > disheartened by what I see. I also spent around 7 years heavily > involved in study programs and activities to popularize the > teachings of the Society but I now find myself looking back and > re-evaluating what we did. How many of those people that > attended those course are still members or even interested? Hard > to say as 90% of members simply pass through the society, > hopefully taking something away with them. What worries me know > is how much of what we taught was actually not even true? The Dalai Lama may invite many unprepared people to the Kalichakra Initiation. The idea is that the exposure plants seeds for future lifetimes, seeds that will germinate in the appropriate time. We can't really judge in advance someone's state of readiness. They may be near a "bifurcation point", and only need the slightest push from us to flower inwardly. Who's to say? We can only work out of a love and appreciation for the beauty, wisdom, and other forms of the spiritual that we are able to express in the world. Giving theosophical classes is one such expression. Some are gifted in giving classes, or feel that is a good outlet for their expressiveness. They should do classes. The rest will end up helping orphan humanity in their own ways, when they discover what those ways are. > What is true however is that there are now many groups teaching > different versions of the Wisdom Tradition. It is also coming to > us from all over the place and today perhaps many people are > getting hints of it, although unknowingly in many of the modern > movies and television programs that we are presented with. I > often find myself wondering how the adepts have chosen to > influence humanity over the last 23 years and to me one of the > obvious is through inspiring many of the movies and other shows > we all see today. > I am someone who has always had a keen interest in Science > Fiction and Science Fantasy. Thus you look at movies like Star > Wars and the concept of THE FORCE (or perhaps FOHAT?). Look at > all the movies about Angles and about the afterlife such as the > movie GHOST. Perhaps they are not direct teaching for the > student but the mass consciousness is certainly changing to more > of an acceptance about these ideas. And I've seen various movies on TV with science fiction themes that do make a good philosophical point. The morals and ethics are a "hidden track" on the story line. In a way, we need to learn to program such tracks into everything we do in the world. > The Adepts (I dislike the term Masters) as I understand them very > rarely do any work in the physical world and work in the higher > consciousness. It may depend upon how developed they are -- where and how they do their work. The highest may be nearly Bodhisattvas, and perhaps work in their Nirmanakayas. Lower ones may be little removed from chelaship, and may walk among us unnoticed. The term "Masters" has mixed connotations. The association with Master versus Slave -- e.g. with slavery -- is objectionable. Another association with someone highly skilled, like a Master of Arts, or someone Adept in what they do, is fine with me. > They are therefore much more likely to use there influence to > inspire the works of the right sort of people. Why is it that > the best ideas come while we sleep or in intuitive flashes? I don't think that the ideas are always specifically directed at us, but reach us in more wave-like manner. There are certain thought streams that may originate with the Mahatmas, and if we tune in with these streams, or harmonize with them, we'll pick up some of the "general transmissions" and have some unusual insights. The analogy I'd use here is more like tuning a radio to a specific station rather than like a two-way phone call. > While we look on the works of Blavatsky as being something > special we need to be careful we do not become close minded. They *are* special, but not exclusively so. If we can discover and appreciate what is special in them, we can learn to recognize that *specialness* in other sources. Until there's some appreciation of the mystery behind the printed words in books like THE SECRET DOCTRINE, we have no means to evaluate the spiritual authority of other claimants, except on the say-so of others. > Certainly the Theosophical Society has initiated a complete new > era in occult literature there are also many works which predate > Blavatsky which are worth studying. After all, all the Secret > Doctrine tries to do is to re-present to us what is already out > there (or was out there). HPB did say that more works would > become available and be rediscovered over the next several > hundred years. The purpose in the study is to cause a certain awakening in ourselves, to get our inner light set ablaze, to brighten our fires of mind. The particular book we use to do this is not so important. If we want to light a campfire, once the blaze is going, it matters little if we used flint and stone, a matchbook, or a cigarette lighter. Someone may say, "this is the best way to light fires," but it would not matter at that point. We're more concerned with tending the fire, and with finding suitable, dry tinder to keep it going. > In the end only our own actions make a difference. We need to > act now if we want to make a difference. Or put another way, in the end only our concrete expressions of our inner divinity counts in life. Those concrete expressions may involve interaction with other people, or producing works of art, or living as a hermit in a cave. What we do is individual, and we have to discover it ourselves. But *expression* is important, doing something rather than having good intentions, good dreams and ideals, else we but make for ourselves a long, happy devachan and leave the world as dark, sad, and orphaned as before. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:12:29 -0500 From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: Amazing article on SD and evolution Richard Ihle writes, > I don't quite get it. I agree that the article is important and > thought-provoking. The part I don't get is how it shows that > modern archeology is approaching HPB's teaching so much. I didn't say that. I agreed with the article, "Root-Races and Geologic Periods" by William A. Savage, that modern medicine is accepting more holistic ideas, modern biology is taking a look at morphogenesis proposed by Rupert Sheldrake, and physics seriously considers the possibility of consciousness as a factor in phenomena, witness the recent book by Amit Goswami, THE SELF-AWARE UNIVERSE. Likewise, it is not unreasonable to expect that archeology will SOMEDAY come closer to the S.D., given that many other fields are doing so NOW. This article may be a step toward dialogue, thus faciliating "approach." > Unfortunately, the only example of similarity of sequence given > is the agreement that dinosaurs left the scene before the rise of > the mammals, No, this is where we should go back and read the original article again. The S.D. and modern science give almost entirely the same sequences in the SAME order, but with very different time frames, one making things contemporaneous where another says they weren't and vice versa. The S.D. will agree that plants arose before reptiles, that the big dinosaurs were being extinguished while smaller forms were taking over, that mammal forms emerged before modern man, etc. The question is not sequence but time frame, and of course CAUSE. > Thus, while perhaps I "didn't quite get it" enough to be as > "inspired" by the article as Rich was What inspired me was not that current science and HPB agree on these things, because as the article pointed out--they don't. What was inspiring was to see someone sit down, work out the dates that the S.D.'s teaching implies, compare those dates to current science, and speculate on how they might be reconciled, i.e. inconstancy in radiometric dating. I was inspired by the dialogue between Theosophical teachings and scientific ones, and I think we don't do enough of that. Science proceeds along its own--largely materialistic--path, while most Theosophists, including ULT Theosophists, are generally content to study their own teachings, quite ignoring other Theosophical authors and current scientific ideas. (There are exceptions to this of course). All of which is why I was so delighted to read this excellent article. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:56:59 -0500 From: "Richard Ihle" Subject: Re: Amazing article on SD and evolution Rich: > > I don't quite get it. I agree that the article is important and > > thought-provoking. The part I don't get is how it shows that > > modern archeology is approaching HPB's teaching so much. > > I didn't say that. [What I said was that] it is not unreasonable > to expect that archeology will SOMEDAY come closer to the S.D., > given that many other fields are doing so NOW. This article may > be a step toward dialogue, thus faciliating "approach." Sorry. I probably jumped to a wrong conclusion because of your enthusiasm. What the heck--maybe the article can be considered "amazing" as merely a "step toward dialogue" rather than an actual dialogue with modern archeology (which would imply that archeologists are now willing to take the SD seriously enough to also join in such a discussion). Certainly, the author deserves credit for being willing to suggest an alternative explanation for the differences in time measurement because of possible problems with radiometric dating (although I previously saw Jerry H-E nicely present the same thing in his discussion of the age of the moon). > > Unfortunately, the only example of similarity of sequence given > > is the agreement that dinosaurs left the scene before the rise of > > the mammals. > > No, this is where we should go back and read the original article > again. The S.D. and modern science give almost entirely the > same sequences in the SAME order, but with very different time > frames, one making things contemporaneous where another says they > weren't and vice versa. I did my re-reading but still find the same thing. I again get the impression that Mr. Savage did not regard the basic similarity (between science and SD) in geologic sequence as something other than a ~given~ and which in itself might not be so surprising. He does not even shy away from mentioning this right up front: "The SD's geologic timeline was derived from (1) thicknesses of sedimentation layers, given in Andre Lefevre's 1879 book LA PHILOSOPHIE [. . .]." Thus, if HPB used this science of the day to calculate the percentages for "SD time etc.," it might not be unreasonable to assume that she happened to notice the sequence of various sedimentation layers as well. (On the other hand, HPB might have derived the basic sequence independently of this--who really knows?) Anyway, Mr. Savage does not seem to try to make a special point about this general similarity; rather, he choses to highlight the following: "An example of agreement on events and difference in timelines is the extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals." Is there another example of a specific event (where archeology and the SD agree) which I missed? Naturally, I do not count the material he gives about the root-races, since I don't think that modern archeology has also discovered, for example, that there were once people who had physical bodies of "such low densities that they might seem like clouds rolling over the landscape." Neither do I count the "human footprints" and "dinosaur pictographs," since even Mr. Savage regards them as "controversal." > What inspired me was not that current science and HPB agree on > these things, because as the article pointed out--they don't. > What was inspiring was to see someone sit down, work out the > dates that the S.D.'s teaching implies, compare those dates to > current science, and speculate on how they might be reconciled, > i.e. inconstancy in radiometric dating. I was inspired by the > dialogue between Theosophical teachings and scientific ones, and > I think we don't do enough of that. I agree. Nicely put. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:47:10 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: Belated responses by K. Paul Johnson K. Paul Johnson writes on theos-l: > I find it interesting that Daniel Caldwell denies that he is > motivated by a rigid belief system in his attacks on my work. > This theme is a significant part of my reply to his "House of > Cards" which has been completed weeks ago but awaits a techie to > help Dr. Lane upload it onto his website. That rigid belief > system is quite apparent in his writings, although I accept his > statement as evidence that he is not aware of his own dogmatism. Does it really matter what my motivations were in writing my critique of Johnson's thesis on the Masters M. and KH? Does it really matter whether I am motivated by a rigid belief system or not? *Readers of my critique can look at the arguments I gave and the evidence I cited and decide whether my arguments hold water or not.* Have I presented evidence ,etc. which shows that Johnson's thesis is wrong? That is the question to be answered. Even if my "motivations" intrude into the text, I would hope some readers are intelligent enough to discern between those "intrusions" and the issues, arguments and evidence presented in my critique. But here we see Johnson being a therapist and analysing my belief system. How does Johnson know what I really believe? No doubt, I have a "belief" system. Doesn't Johnson? Doesn't most people? If I am wrong in my "beliefs" on the Masters, then please tell me more than that I am wrong. What am I not considering? Where am I wrong in my assumptions, etc.? Win me over with rational discussion, etc. instead of simply telling me I have a rigid belief system. I have tried to show in some detail with numerous examples where I believe Johnson has gone astray in his research on the Masters M. and K.H. I would think that even Dr. David Lane, who says he knows little about Theosophical history, would be able to see some of the points I attempted to make in the critique and some of the issues involved. It would appear that Johnson is using an ad hominem argument. Johnson seems to be saying: Distract by focusing on Caldwell; don't deal with the issues Caldwell raised in his critique. Isn't this similar to those Theosophists who have questioned Johnson's motivations instead of dealing with the substance of Johnson's arguments? I have no idea what Johnson's motivations were in writing his books. I assume they were all good but I don't really care. Does Johnson really know what my belief system is or how rigid it is? Or is he just blowing smoke to distract from the issues I wrote about in HOUSE OF CARDS? Here is part of my central argument in HOUSE OF CARDS: "In summary, it would appear that Johnson wants to use some of Olcott's testimony on the Masters to buttress his own thesis, but would prefer to downplay or omit other testimony by Olcott that is not consistent with and, in fact, contradicts his conjectures. Although he accused Mr. Richard-Nafarre of 'evading evidence,' is Johnson not guilty himself of ignoring evidence and testimony 'presumably because it conflicts with other sources he prefers'? Furthermore, Johnson is quite willing to accuse Ramaswamier of lying when the latter's testimony of meeting Morya in Sikkim contradicts ohnson's speculations. But Olcott's testimony of the Master Morya coming to Bombay on numerous occasions also runs counter to Johnson's conjectures. Is 'something' wrong with Olcott's Bombay testimony? Is Johnson willing to entertain the possibility that Olcott mmight also be giving false testimony? But if Olcott is lying about the Master's appearances at Bombay, who (except Johnson??) would be foolish enough to accept Olcott's other testimony about adepts visiting him in New York, Amritsar, and Lahore?" "Let it be clearly understood, I am not suggesting that Olcott lied about any of his meetings with the Adepts. In fact, I agree with Johnson that Olcott encountered real adepts in New York, Amritsar and Lahore. But I would go further and maintain that the remaining encounters Olcott had with adepts at Bombay, Colombo and elsewhere should also be taken at face value. In other words, if one wants to be consistent in one's thinking on the subject, why accept some of Olcott's testimony on the Masters while rejecting or at least ignoring the rest of it? Of course, Johnson has a thesis that he is obliged to defend. He has committed himself to certain identifications of the Masters M. and K.H. Has Johnson painted himself into the proverbial 'corner'?" To illustrate this argument of mine, I gave in my critique numerous detailed examples from the primary Theosophical sources. My critique on Johnson's thesis concerning M. and K.H. can be found on the World Wide Web at this URL address: http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johnson.htm Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:08:02 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks K. Paul Johnson wrote: > Two people have accused me of making ad hominem attacks on Daniel > Caldwell, as a result of my stating that a rigid belief system > motivated his attacks on my work. The argument is that I should > respond in substantive detail to his attacks on my work. In fact > I have done so at great length, and said so in the post in > question. That it has not appeared on Dr. Lane's website weeks > after my sending it is due to technical delays, not reluctance on > my part. What I said, and readers of the reply will be able to > confirm, is that analysis of Mr. Caldwell's arguments shows a > rigid belief system to underly them. That is enough said on the > matter. When the response is available the evidence on this > score will be seen to be quite abundant. > > Q. What do JHE, Daniel Caldwell, and John Algeo have in common? > > A. They are all people whose friendship I tried hard to secure > or maintain, who are thanked for small favors in the > acknowledgments of my last book, received free copies of both of > them, and have become implacable enemies for reasons that I think > have more to do with their belief systems than with me. > > There is something incredibly frustrating about people who give > abundant evidence of enmity, but when confronted about it say > "You're paranoid" and then use the alleged paranoia to *further* > attack you. Daniel Caldwell replies: Notice how Johnson refers to me, JHE and John Algeo: "implacable enemies" ......." people who give abundant evidence of enmity" and in his reference to my critique Johnson refers to "my attacks" on his books. He appears to be the one who wants to create an "us versus them" situation. I don't consider myself Johnson's enemy but he must consider me" his" enemy. I have nothing against Johnson personally but I do question some of his research and his conclusions on the two Masters M and KH. Yes, I have been upfront in my criticisms and I have been frank and honest in my opinions on some of his research. Yes, I believe some of his research has been less than accurate, etc. but I have also criticized the research of other Theosophical writers such as Jean Overton Fuller, Boris de Zirkoff, Geoffrey Barborka, etc. Johnson even wrote to me in 1993 and said he appreciated my razor blade critique of some of Fuller's research on HPB. I wouldn't mind being Johnson's friend but IF to be his friend, I had to be all nice smiles and refrain from telling him what I honestly thought of some of his research and conclusions, then it would probably be better not to be his friend. I don't always agree with what John Crocker writes on Theos-l but I do admire his frank outspoken way of writing. I wonder how Johnson would react if he and Crocker ever got on opposite sides of an issue and in a heated argument? : ) Yes, I do have beliefs, doesn't Johnson? But I think the attentive reader of my critique will see issues that have nothing to do with me personally or with Johnson personally. The issues are bigger than both of us and will still be around when we are both dead. Erase Caldwell and Johnson from the equation and look at Johnson's CONJECTURES on M and KH and the ARGUMENTS in my critique. Does it really matter who came up with these hypotheses on M and KH? Does it really matter who wrote the critique on Johnson's hypotheses? The seeker of truth, the dispassioned scholar, etc. will look at the issues and forget the two people who wrote the material. I will see how Johnson responds to my critique but I do believe that all this reference to my "rigid" belief system is a smokescreen to distract from the real issues involved. Why has Johnson decided not to deal exclusively with the issues raised but to also muddle around with my supposed "rigid" adherence to some belief system? I bet Johnson would cry "foul" if someone was to attack his books and also attempt to psychoanlyze his personality, his belief system, etc.? On alt.religion.eckankar, Johnson has even defended Dr. David Lane from personal attacks when certain Eckists has tried to distract the argument from the evidence, etc. concerning Paul Twitchell and focus the spotlight on Lane. But you know, I am not so thin-skinned and I can take the heat. Let Johnson anaylze and psychoanlyze my belief system all he wants, the real issues will not be so easily done away with or obscured. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:27:13 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: Personal survival: A QUESTION TO MICHAEL ROGG ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS Re: Personal survival: A QUESTION TO MICHAEL ROGG ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS In a recent posting on Theos-l, Michael Rogg wrote in part: "I have devoted quite a few pages on my site to the personal survival problem and more in my book "Dood geen Einde" (Death no End) , particularly the Spiritualists' point of view. It is my opinion that Theosophists should acquaint themselves far more with mediumistic phenomena because from that stable came the movement but severed its connections for various reasons, although HPB continued to act as a medium. For me the clue to the communications of the Masters lies in similar inspired writings (Old Testament). Communicators born out of fantasy may take on quite a solid appearance. I have given an example in my summary of the "Philip" experiments by Canadian parapsycholgists (see my page on the "presence phenomenon") of a product of fantasy being evoked which made itself physically known." On Michael's WWW homepage, he says that "proof of their [the Masters'] existence has never been found." I have a question, Michael. Have you had a chance to read K. Paul Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED and my critique [HOUSE OF CARDS] of his thesis on the Masters M. and K.H? In both his book and my critique you will find testimony by Henry Olcott and others on their encounters with these two Masters. How do you explain these experiences especially in light of your statement that "communicators born out of fantasy may take on quite a solid appearance"? I have studied the history of spiritualism for more than twenty years and I have never found accounts in the spiritualistic literature that would parallel the testimonies concerning the Theosophical Masters. K. Paul Johnson and I do not see eye to eye on many things, but we do, I believe, agree that there is evidence indicating that at least the Master "Koot Hoomi" was a living flesh and blood person and not some ectoplasmic manifestation materialized through Blavatsky's "mediumship." Have you read these accounts by Olcott and others? And how do you explain these accounts? You raise good questions but your narratives on Theos-l and on your homepage about HPB, mediumship, the Masters and spiritualism are couched in very vague, non-specific language and do not grapple with the detailed accounts as given by Olcott and other witnesses to HPB's phenomena and the encounters with the Mahatmas. Some of this rich, detailed testimony has been published in my 1991 book titled THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. In the last year I have been studying the remarkable mediumship of the Reverend Francis Monck, a contemporary of Blavatsky's. I may try to post on Theos-l some of the accounts of his materializations in full light. I do agree that most Theosophists and even Blavatsky students appear to be uninformed about the history of spiritualism and its interrelationship with the history of Theosophy and Blavatsky. Much of what is written on mediumship and life after death in THE MAHATMAS LETTERS is not apparently fully appreciated by students of these letters; I believe one of the reasons is the fact that most students and readers of these letters do not have a good background understanding of spiritualism, its phenomena and teachings. For example, a careful reading of LIGHT magazine during the years 1881-1895 is very informative for the student of Blavatsky and Theosophy. What books on spiritualism would you (Michael) recommend for interested Theos-l readers? I will try to post in the near future a number of "reference books" which give good overviews and a great deal of detail on spiritualism, its phenomena, its teachings, and its history. Michael, I agree that the book CONJURING UP PHILIP: An Adventure in Psychokinesis by Iris M. Owen and Margaret Sparrow is a very important book. I would suggest any interested Blavatsky student should read CONJURING UP PHILIP in conjunction with THE OCCULT WORLD (1881) written by A.P. Sinnett. A comparison of these two books and some of the ideas enunciated in both works will lead to some interesting insights and conclusions. Writing this posting reminded me of a work I did in 1989 titled KRIYASHAKTI CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS: The Psychology of the Visionary Experience which gives the Theosophical perspective as given in the writings of Blavatsky and the Mahatmas. I think I will prepare it for publication on the World Wide Web. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:28:24 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: ANNOUNCING JOHNSON'S REJOINDER TO CALDWELL'S HOUSE OF CARDS ANNOUNCING JOHNSON'S REJOINDER TO CALDWELL'S HOUSE OF CARDS The below announcement has been copied from alt.religion.eckankar. More food for thought!! > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 03:01:09 -0600 > From: "David Lane" > Subject: Theosophy and Its Discontents--an exchange of views now > online > > As many on this newsgroup are aware, there has been a heated > debate in Theosophical circles about K. Paul Johnson's thesis > concerning the historical identity of Madame's "Masters." Daniel > Caldwell, an expert on the early history of Theosophy, has > written an analysis of Johnson's work entitled House of Cards. > K. Paul Johnson, a noted scholar and author of two widely > discussed books on Theosophy (SUNY Press), has written a > rejoinder to Daniel Caldwell. Johnson's essay and a hyperlink to > Caldwell's essay are now online via the Neural Surfer, Critical > Mind, point 5. http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point5.html Quite > interesting reading and some of their issues touch upon > discussions in this group...... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 21:33:42 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: A QUESTION OF THE PARANORMAL: YOU BE THE JUDGE OF WHAT JOHNSON WRITES A QUESTION OF THE PARANORMAL: YOU BE THE JUDGE OF WHAT JOHNSON WRITES K. Paul Johnson writes in his rejoinder to my HOUSE OF CARDS about some of the cases that I quoted in Part II of my critique. Here are Johnson's comments. After his comments I quote the cases Johnson refers to. Please read these accounts and ask yourself which case is more paranormal? Which case shows elements of the paranormal? Compare these cases for yourself. Which case appears "more like paranormal visitations than normal physical visits." Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what my reply would be to Johnson's comments? Happy thinking!! Daniel Caldwell Johnson's comments are as follows: > PART II > > In his case for evaluating all claims by Col. Olcott about the > Masters by a single standard, Mr. Caldwell cites a letter in > which Olcott reported being awakened from sleep in Ceylon in 1881 > by Morya, who made him take dictation for an hour. He then goes > on to describe a case where Morya "showed himself" to Olcott and > HPB, and an "appearance" by Morya before six other people. All > of these are equated with the Ooton Liatto case, which is much > more clearly one of *physically* present people conversing with > Olcott. But Mr. Caldwell does not seem to recognize that these > "appearances" sound more like paranormal visitations than normal > physical visits. How can he assume that such appearances, if > genuine, were not Ranbir Singh, since he does not know whether or > not the maharaja was capable of such phenomena? What does he know > of other people who were, who might therefore be more plausible > candidates for the Morya in these stories? This section of his > argument shows naivete in conflating different categories of > evidence. The principle which seems to elude Mr. Caldwell is > that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. My > explanation of HPB's relationship with the Masters relies on > ordinary factors and is based on ordinary historical evidence. > Mr. Caldwell is defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the > Masters, on behalf of which he cites evidence of a far more > dubious and ambiguous kind. Now I quote Olcott's accounts as given in HOUSE OF CARDS: CASE A: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON LIATTO. > "...I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when there came a > tap at the door---I said 'come in' and there entered the > [younger] Bro[ther] with another dark skinned gentleman of about > fifty....We took cigars and chatted for a while....[Then Olcott > relates that a rain shower started in the room. Olcott continues > the account:] They sat there and quietly smoked their cigars, > while mine became too wet to burn....finally the younger of the > two (who gave me his name as Ooton Liatto) said I needn't worry > nothing would be damaged....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam > B[lavatsky]....the elder Bro[ther]...[said] that with her > permission they would call upon her. I ran downstairs---rushed > into Madams parlour---and---there sat these same two identical > men smoking with her and chatting....I said nothing but rushed up > stairs again tore open my door and---the men were not there---I > ran down again, they had disappeared--- I . . . looked out the > window---and saw them turning the corner...." (Olcott's account > is given in full in Theosophical History, Jan., 1994.) CASE B: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MORYA IN CEYLON > "...on the night of that day [Sept. 27th, 1881] I was awakened > from sleep by my Chohan (or Guru, the Brother [Morya] whose > immediate pupil I am)....He made me rise, sit at my table and > write from his dictation for an hour or more. There was an > expression of anxiety mingled with sternness on his noble face, > as there always is when the matter concerns H.P.B., to whom for > many years he has been at once a father and a devoted guardian. > . . ." (Quoted in Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, > pp. 82-83. CASE C: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MORYA AT BOMBAY In his diary for Jan. 29, 1882, Colonel Olcott pens this brief entry: > "M[orya] showed himself very clearly to me & HPB in her > garden.... she joining him they talked together...." CASE D: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF SEEING MORYA AT BOMBAY WITH SIX OTHER WITNESSES > "We were sitting together in the moonlight about 9 o'clock upon > the balcony which projects from the front of the bungalow. Mr. > Scott was sitting facing the house, so as to look through the > intervening verandah and the library, and into the room at the > further side. This latter apartment was brilliantly lighted. > The library was in partial darkness, thus rendering objects in > the farther room more distinct. Mr. Scott suddenly saw the > figure of a man step into the space, opposite the door of the > library; he was clad in the white dress of a Rajput, and wore a > white turban. Mr. Scott at once recognized him from his > resemblance to a portrait [of Morya] in Col. Olcott's > possession. Our attention was then drawn to him, and we all saw > him most distinctly. He walked towards a table, and afterwards > turning his face towards us, walked back out of our sight...when > we reached the room he was gone....Upon the table, at the spot > where he had been standing, lay a letter addressed to one of our > number. The handwriting was identical with that of sundry notes > and letters previously received from him...." The statement is > signed by: "Ross Scott, Minnie J.B. Scott, H.S. Olcott, H.P. > Blavatsky, M. Moorad Ali Beg, Damodar K. Mavalankar, and > Bhavani Shankar Ganesh Mullapoorkar." (Quoted from Hints On > Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, pp. 75-76.) From Olcott's diary for Jan. 5, 1882, > "Evening. Moonlight. On balcony, HPB, Self, Scott & wife, > Damodar....[etc]...M[orya] appeared in my office. First seen by > Scott, then me....Scott clearly saw M's face....M left note for > me on table in office by which he stood...." And just for the fun of it, I throw in Olcott's 1879 encounter with the Master Morya at Bombay. I quoted this case in Part I of HOUSE OF CARDS. Does this 1879 event have more paranormal elements to it than the Ooton Liatto account? > "This same Brother once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming > in full day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a > servant into the front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow (she being at > the time in the other bungalow talking with those who were > there). He [Morya] came to scold me roundly for something I had > done in T.S. matters, and as H.P.B. was also to blame, he > telegraphed to her to come, that is to say, he turned his face > and extended his finger in the direction of the place she was in. > She came over at once with a rush, and seeing him dropped to her > knees and paid him reverence. My voice and his had been heard by > those in the other bungalow, but only H.P.B. and I, and the > servant saw him." (Extract from a letter written by Colonel > Olcott to A.O. Hume on Sept. 30, 1881. Quoted in Hints On > Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, p. 80.) YOU BE THE JUDGE. . . . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:16:16 -0800 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: "The Thought World" At the end of this article is a long quote from WQ Judge. If anyone knows the source of it, please let me know. Nicholas > THE THOUGHT WORLD > > by H.W. Graves > > The welfare of Humanity turns upon the evolution of the Thinking > Principle. It is here that the springs of action lie. "As a man > thinketh in his heart, so is he." All that I am is the result of > what I have thought, it is made up of my thought. Hidden behind > the veil of physical matter is the subtle machinery of > thought--just as real, vital, as scientifically arranged as the > machinery of the living body. > > And the activity of every human brain is as closely related to it > as the physical body is related to the surrounding air in which > it lives and moves. In this thought-world the real inner man has > his proper home, and uses his physical vesture merely as an > instrument to contact the physical world in which so many > problems have to be solved. > > The aspect which every man's environment wears to himself depends > directly upon the quality of the thoughts which he himself > evolves. > > And as man is part and parcel of Nature, embosomed therein at > every moment of his life, it follows that his thinking acts > directly and momently upon Nature as surely as it does upon > himself. Modern science has demonstrated nothing more clearly > than the fact that the atoms of matter are forever bound together > by a thousand unseverable ties, reciprocally active, and > maintaining a marvelous equilibrium throughout the manifested > universe. Not less deeply united is humanity, and the breath of > its inner and mental life is this living, all-pervading sea or > breath of thought, to which, consciously or not, every human > being constantly contributes, for evil or for good. Precisely > how thought acts and reacts incessantly on man and on Nature, > science has never clearly shown. But Eastern Philosophy long ago > solved the problem of mind, and today throws a bright light on > the question of human responsibility. > > "Every thought of man upon being evolved passes into the inner > world, and becomes an active entity by associating itself, > coalescing as we might term it, with an elemental--that is to > say, with one of the semi-intelligent forces of the kingdoms. > > It survives as an active intelligence--a creature of the mind's > begetting--for a longer or shorter period proportionate with the > original intensity of the cerebral action which generated it. > Thus, a good thought is perpetuated as an active, beneficent > power, an evil one as a maleficent demon. And so man is > continually peopling his current in space with a world of his > own, crowded with the offspring of his fancies, desires, impulses > and passions; a current which reacts upon any sensitive or > nervous organization which comes in contact with it, in > proportion to its dynamic intensity... > > The adept evolves these shapes consciously; other men throw them > off unconsciously." [THE OCCULT WORLD, pp. 131-32; THE MAHATMA > LETTERS, Chronological ed. p. 472.] > > The mind, working on its own plane, generates images, thought- > forms. Imagination is literally the creative faculty. > Responsive to our thoughts are the Elementals which ensoul the > forms so created. An Eastern Sage speaking of the part played by > sound and color in the psychic world says: > > "How could you make yourself understood, command in fact, those > semi-intelligent Forces, whose means of communicating with us are > not through spoken words, but through sounds and colors, in > correlation between the vibrations of the two? For sound, light > and color are the main factors in forming those grades of > intelligences, those beings of whose very existence you have no > conception, nor *are you allowed* to believe in them -- Atheists > and Christians, Materialists and Spiritualists, all bringing > forward their respective arguments against such a belief -- > science objecting stronger than either of these to such a > `degrading superstition'." [THE OCCULT WORLD, pp. 147-48; THE > MAHATMA LETTERS, C.E., p. 47] > > Elementals are addressed by colors, and color-words are as > intelligible to them as spoken words are to men. > > The hue of the color depends on the nature of the motive > inspiring the generator of the thought-form. If the motive be > pure, loving, beneficent in its character, the color produced > will summon to the thought-form an Elemental, which will take on > the characteristics impressed on the form by the motive, and act > along the line thus traced. This Elemental enters into the > thought-form, playing to it the part of a soul, and thus an > independent entity is made in the astral world, an entity of a > beneficent character. > > If the motive, however, be impure, revengeful, maleficent in its > character, the color produced will summon to the thought-form an > Elemental which will equally take on the characteristics > impressed on the form by the motive, and act along the line thus > traced. In this case also the Elemental enters into the thought- > form, playing to it the part of a soul, and thus making an > independent entity in the astral world, an entity of a maleficent > character. > > For example, an angry thought will cause a flash of red, which is > a summons to the Elementals, which sweep in the direction of the > summoner, and one of them enters into the thought-form, endowing > it with an independent, destructive activity. > > Men are continually talking in this color-language quite > unconsciously, and thus calling round them these swarms of > Elementals, who take up their abodes in the various thought-forms > provided. Thus it is that a man peoples "his current in space > with a world of his own, crowded with the offspring of his > fancies, desires, impulses and passions." > > Angels and demons of our own creating throng round us on every > side, makers of weal and woe to others, and to ourselves. > > The life-period of these thought-forms depends on the energy > imparted to them by their human progenitor. Their life may be > continually reinforced by repetition; and a thought which is > brooded over, acquires great stability of form. So again > thought- forms of a similar character are attracted to and > mutually strengthen each other, making a form of great energy and > intensity. > > Not only does a man generate and send forth his own thought- > forms, but he also serves as a magnet to draw towards himself the > thought-forms of others. > > He may thus attract to himself large reinforcements of energy > from outside, and it lies within himself whether these forces > that he draws into his own being from the external world shall be > of a good or of an evil kind. > > If one's thoughts are pure and noble, he will attract around him > hosts of beneficent entities, and may sometimes wonder whence > comes to him power that seems so much beyond his own. > > Similarly a man of foul and base thoughts attracts to himself > hosts of maleficent entities, and this added energy for evil > commits crimes that astonish him in the retrospect. > > William Q. Judge wrote: > > "Can we, then, be too careful to guard the ground of the mind, to > keep close watch over our thoughts? These thoughts are dynamic. > Each one as it leaves the mind has a force of its own, > proportionate to the intensity with which it was propelled. > > As the force or work done, of a moving body, is proportionate to > the square of its velocity, so we may say that the force of > thoughts is to be measured by the square or quadrupled power of > their spirituality, so greatly do these finer forces increase by > activity. The spiritual force, being impersonal, fluidic, not > bound to any constricting center, acts with unimaginable > swiftness. > > A thought, on its departure from the mind, is said to associate > itself with an elemental; it is attracted wherever there is a > similar vibration, or, let us say, a suitable soil, just as the > winged thistle-seed floats off and sows itself in this spot and > not in that, in the soil of its natural selection. Thus the man > of virtue, by admitting a material or sensual thought into his > mind, even though he expel it, sends it forth to swell the evil > impulses of the man of vice from whom he imagines himself > separated by a wide gulf, and to whom he may have just given a > fresh impulse to sin. Many men are like sponges, porous and > bibulous, ready to suck up every element of the order prepared by > their nature. We all have more or less of this quality: we > attract what we love, and we may derive a greater strength from > the vitality of thoughts infused from without than from those > self-reproduced within us at a time when our nervous vitality is > exhausted. It is a solemn thought, this, of our responsibility > for the impulse of another. We live in one another, and our > widely different deeds have often a common source. The occultist > cannot go far upon his way without realizing to what a great > extent he is `his brother's keeper.' Our affinities are > ourselves, in whatever ground they may live and ripen." > > Earnestness, said Buddha, is the path of immortality, > thoughtlessness the path of death. > > [UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD, Vol. XIII, Mar. 1899, pp. 660-62.] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:02:11 -0800 From: "Gail Stevenson" Subject: Re: "The Thought World" Nicholas Weeks wrote: > At the end of this article is a long quote from WQ Judge. If > anyone knows the source of it, please let me know. Nicholas Nicholas: The quotation comes from "Letters That Have Helped Me", p. 16. (The WQJ quote follows.) Best, Gail From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:36:54 -0800 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Source of Thought World quote Thanks to Gail! It turns out to be by "Jasper Niemand" ie Julia Keightley, not by Judge. See LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME, pp. 16-17 (ULT ed) or pp. 21-22 (TUP ed.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:24:13 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: KP Johnson's Comments on What Michael Rogg Wrote Forwarded from Theos-l and Theos-Roots. Daniel > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 14:30:20 EST > From: "K Paul Johnson" > Subject: HPB's authority > > I agree with Michael Rogge that HPB's synthesis of spiritual > traditions has the strong imprint of the 19th century mind, that > her understanding of source traditions was not always reliable, > and that it behooves us to go directly to the sources and modern > scholarship for a more grounded view. Even at my deepest stage > of true believerhood, I would never have disputed this statement. > > But to say these things as if they somehow invalidate HPB seems > to fail to appreciate the extent to which the same can be said of > *any* teaching. Blavatsky Theosophists say the same about > Bailey, Leadbeater, Cayce, etc.: that they are distorted > interpretations of the "source" material, reflecting the biases > of a later period and different circumstances, and one should go > back to the source for a more grounded view. But Jews are > entitled to say it about Christians, Christians about Muslims, > Hindus about Buddhists and Sikhs, ad infinitum. > > The truth is that any new religious teaching is constructed from > bits and pieces of preexisting systems, the meaning of which is > changed as they are formed into new patterns. To use a > Gurdjieffian expression, "That's not an exception. That's life!" > So the important question concerning HPB's authority, to my mind, > is not whether she accurately understood and conveyed all the > material she studied; of course she didn't. What makes HPB stand > so far above so many other comparable figures in history is the > vastness and audacity of her spiritual quest, her literary > skills, and her ability to convey what she had learned in a way > that sparked important cultural transformations. > > You could prove all her miracles fraudulent, prove her > scholarship full of holes, and prove her personal character > blameworthy and that wouldn't detract at all from her status as > the single most influential factor in the awakening of the West > to Eastern and esoteric spiritualities. Nor would it alter the > fact that she traveled to more obscure places and studied more > different spiritual traditions than any other writer of her time > (except her friend Sir Richard Burton). Nor would it change the > fact that she took heretofore obscure, dusty subjects and wrote > about them so engagingly as to hit the best-seller lists of her > time (if they had them). That's where her greatness lies, and I > continue to regard her as having attained greatness. This > despite agreeing with Mr. Rogge on a subject where he has > perceived my views to be quite different than they actually are. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:29:23 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Tim Maroney on the Mahatma Letters Forwarded from theos-l and theos-roots. > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 13:19:30 -0800 > From: "Tim Maroney" > Subject: Re: Western Style of the Mahatmas > > > In Indian ashrams salvation through knowledge would have sounded > > equally ridiculous. > > While most of your points were well taken, I would have to argue > with this one. Jnana-Yoga is a well-established and longstanding > limb of the yogic path, and it essentially consists of > enlightenment through philosophy. > > For me, the main factor demonstrating the Western origin of the > Theosophical teachings is the casual ease with which Western > allusions are scattered through the works of supposedly Eastern > writers. While the (Indian or) Tibetan Koot Hoomi, for instance, > has no difficulty dropping casual references to the Greek myth of > Echo and St. Paul's vision on the road, as well as to > contemporary Western writers in great profusion and to European > idioms everywhere, his references to actual Eastern words and > doctrines are self-conscious, plodding, and relatively rare in > comparison to the casual Western allusions; a very small set of > ideas is presented over and over, and in a presentational mode > rather than the conversational mode in which the Western ideas > are often expressed. > > Here we have a writer who seems much more comfortable in one > world than the other -- which world, then, should we think the > writer came from? > > Or should we assume that Spencer's pamphlets on evolutionary > philosophy were common reading in the ashrams and lamaseries of > the time? > > Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:19:37 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Michale Rogg Answers Some Questions about HPB and Her Masters I forward the below post from theos-l and theos-roots. Some subscribers on theos-talk may find Michael's comments of some interest. Daniel > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:48:51 +0100 > From: "Michael Rogge" > Subject: Answer to Daniel Caldwell > > > In a recent posting on Theos-l, Michael Rogg wrote in part: > > > > "I have devoted quite a few pages on my site to the personal > > survival problem and more in my book "Dood geen Einde" (Death no > > End) , particularly the Spiritualists' point of view. It is my > > opinion that Theosophists should acquaint themselves far more > > with mediumistic phenomena because from that stable came the > > movement but severed its connections for various reasons, > > although HPB continued to act as a medium. For me the clue to > > the communications of the Masters lies in similar inspired > > writings (Old Testament). Communicators born out of fantasy may > > take on quite a solid appearance. I have given an example in my > > summary of the "Philip" experiments by Canadian parapsycholgists > > (see my page on the "presence phenomenon") of a product of > > fantasy being evoked which made itself physically known." > > > > On Michael's WWW homepage, he says that "proof of their [the > > Masters'] existence has never been found." > > > > I have a question, Michael. Have you had a chance to read K. > > Paul Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED and my critique [HOUSE OF > > CARDS] of his thesis on the Masters M. and K.H? In both his book > > and my critique you will find testimony by Henry Olcott and > > others on their encounters with these two Masters. How do you > > explain these experiences especially in light of your statement > > that "communicators born out of fantasy may take on quite a solid > > appearance"? I have studied the history of spiritualism for more > > than twenty years and I have never found accounts in the > > spiritualistic literature that would parallel the testimonies > > concerning the Theosophical Masters. K. Paul Johnson and I do > > not see eye to eye on many things, but we do, I believe, agree > > that there is evidence indicating that at least the Master "Koot > > Hoomi" was a living flesh and blood person and not some > > ectoplasmic manifestation materialized through Blavatsky's > > "mediumship." > > First of all: My reference to figures born out of fantasy taking > on quite a solid appearance, referred to Canadian "Philip" and > "Hamilton" experiments. As these materialisations usually occur > in seance conditions, I do not think that they apply to physical > appearances of "Masters". > > In the light of the heated debate going on I have perused TMR and > HoC. I salute K. Paul Johnson for bringing together so much > biographical information of the personalities HPB came in contact > with. I think his work important because it attempts to throw > light on the evolution of the myth of the Masters in HPB's'mind. > > I can only offer my sympathy to both KPJ and his opponent being > carried away by their ostensible right, but even more to the > subscribers who were subjected to their arguments. > > PLease permit me to sum up my position. > > A. Scholars have hardly ever accepted HPB's version of Eastern > religio-philosophical traditions. > > B. HPB's presentation of truth therefore hinges on acceptance of > her authorities: Masters of Wisdom of a White Brotherhood > residing in far away Tibet.. > > It surprises me that KPJ, after having drawn out the carpet > underneath the Masters, is not detracted "one iota from the truth > of the principles enunciated by her or the alleged Masters", > because it implies absolute credence in her interpretation of > Western and Eastern esoteric traditions. > > C. Nowhere independent proof of existence of such Masters has > been found, if one discounts testimony of those involved in the > apparent hoax. One of the greatest authorities, Mme. Alexandra > David-Neel, gave a scathing judgment. Time and again I have > brought up myself the question of the masters with informed > people like John Blofeld, and Tibetan priests, some of whom close > to the Dalai Lama. I met nothing but amazement of such > gullibility on the part of Westerners. Baird Spalding with his > Masters of Wisdom (or something like that) also cashed in on the > credulity of Western audiences, not to speak of Lobsang Rampa. > > D. Since then never a body of teachings resembling that of > Theosophy has ever been traced in the Far East. Elements yes, > but the whole complex system with its interpretation? > > E. The Masters'/HPB' teachings were a typical product of the > nineteenth century when the accent was on the intellect. It > complied with the popular saying: "knowledge is power". I do not > see Mahatmas like Ramakrishna, or Ramana Maharishi proclaiming > such intellectual truths. Moreover Indian guru's use to frown > upon performing physical paranormal phenomena. They occurred, > but not intentionally. > > In fact such super human beings as described by HPB's have never > been found. > > Remains the question of who perpetrated this myth? > > I value KPJ's work to bring forward persons who could have stood > model. Yet we remain with the question of how exactly were HPB's > devotees tricked? Who wrote the Mahatma letters? We know from > spiritualist history that aiutomatic writing may differ > completely from that of the medium. Although handwriting > expertise has been applied, I wonder whether stylometry, with > which style characteristics may be traced, would give any clue. > This software-instrument revealed years ago that not all letters > in the New Testament were written by their supposed authors. > > For me the Masters were either split-personalities in HPB's mind > or possibly spiritualist' communicators/entities, or on a > physical plane: people impersonating Theosophist Masters. > > Explanations will have to be found for their physical appearance > to devotees. If those close to HPB were convinced of the > existence of the Masters they may have been either deceived by > their own fantasy or by trickery by confidants. > > One explanation may be that HPB tricked one half of them with the > aid of the other half and vice versa. It will be difficult at > this stage to establish who corroborated exactly where and when > and what valid excuse was employed. > > I see HPB as the prime mover. Her mind was a sponge having > absorbed all her childhood occult experiences and impressions. > One clue is her pleasure in keeping her childhood friends > spellbound by mystery stories. On top of that she was influenced > during her travels by people who may have exaggerated their > powers and knowledge. All this at a time that oriental religious > works created quite a stir when they came available in > translation. > > I see it as the creativity of her subconscious mind to mould it > into a coherent doctrine, a popularization of western and eastern > spiritual traditions into a religious faith for the general > public. My admiration increases when I realize that she must > have led quite a double life to perpetrate all the trickery > necessary to foster credence in the idea that she was a messenger > of a White Brotherhood. > > Psychologically, she was rewarded by the respect she craved for, > combined with a true calling to serve mankind. As for her > followers, Olcott c.s. would have never left a trace in history > if it were not for the acceptance of the myth of the White > Brotherhood. Jehova's Witnesses must feel similarly uplifted > when they are told to receive salvation by spreading their truth. > > Theosophy is a typical product of a Western mind, no Oriental > would have conceived of a dogmatic system like that of nineteenth > century Theosophy. Paramount in Eastern traditions is the belief > that the intellect stands in the way of apprehending reality. > Zen Buddhism went farthest in breaking the mind with its severe > discipline and absurd riddles, koans. In Indian ashrams > salvation through knowledge would have sounded equally > ridiculous. > > > Have you read these accounts by Olcott and others? And how do you > > explain these accounts? You raise good questions but your > > narratives on Theos-l and on your homepage about HPB, mediumship, > > the Masters and spiritualism are couched in very vague, > > non-specific language and do not grapple with the detailed > > accounts as given by Olcott and other witnesses to HPB's > > phenomena and the encounters with the Mahatmas. > > It is a personal evaluation. Meanwhile I have revised slightly > my pages to allow for real personalities in HPB's life having > stood model for the Masters. > > As stated above, the Masters could well have been > split-personalities. After all she had a mediamistic mind which > has a tendency for such creations. I have no explanations for > the detailed accounts of encounters with Masters except that > confidants of HPB acted out the part, or that the witnesses > simply lied or fantasized. We can only guess, what excuse HPB > gave followers to play a part in the hoax for the good of the > Work. > > As to fidelity to truth in religious matters: to what length do > not followers of a faith go to further it? Letters in the New > Testament were written under assumed names. Everyone knows that > the Wisdom of Solomon was not written by this biblical figure, > etc. etc. > > > Some of this rich, detailed testimony has been published in my > > 1991 book titled THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. > > I'll try to get hold of it, but I doubt if at this stage we can > ever discover the complete truth. Unfortunately we do not have a > full confession of anyone of HPB's associates. > > > In the last year I have been studying the remarkable mediumship > > of the Reverend Francis Monck, a contemporary of Blavatsky's. > > You will have read that he was sent to prison after discovery of > a piece of muslin on a white frame which the medium was accused > of having used to fake materilizations. However, there is a body > of important evidence in his favour in particular that of > archdeacon Colley. It is well known of otherwise reliable > mediums to have resorted to trickery. A study of the mediumistic > mind such as in Prof. Jung's Psychiatric Studies: On the > psychology and pathology of so-called occult phenoena. > > > I may try to post on Theos-l some of the accounts of his > > materializations in full light. I do agree that most > > Theosophists and even Blavatsky students appear to be uninformed > > about the history of spiritualism and its interrelationship with > > the history of Theosophy and Blavatsky. Much of what is written > > on mediumship and life after death in THE MAHATMAS LETTERS is not > > apparently fully appreciated by students of these letters; I > > believe one of the reasons is the fact that most students and > > readers of these letters do not have a good background > > understanding of spiritualism, its phenomena and teachings. For > > example, a careful reading of LIGHT magazine during the years > > 1881-1895 is very informative for the student of Blavatsky and > > Theosophy. > > I quite agree. > > > What books on spiritualism would you (Michael) recommend for > > interested Theos-l readers? I will try to post in the near future > > a number of "reference books" which give good overviews and a > > great deal of detail on spiritualism, its phenomena, its > > teachings, and its history. > > I find it difficult to make a choice as many describe a facet. I > should like to see amongst them: > > As for its history: > > Brian Inglis: "Natural and Supernatural. A history of the > paranormal." Spiritualism at the time of Theosophy's foundation: > > Olcott's "People from the other World" Emma Hardinge: "Modern > American Spiritualism" (first published in 1870) > > As for the case for an afterlife: > > Prof.Hornell Hart: The Enigma of Survival. The case for and > against an afterlife (Rider & Co.) > > On the wealth of sub-conscious fantasy/Communicators: Jane > Roberts' books on the Seth control. Books on Edgar Cayce, > Geraldine Cummins: "The scripts of Cleophas" (Acts of the New > Testament elaborated) > > Dr.Robert Crookall. "The supreme adventure". Analyses of > psychic communications.(James Clarke & Co.Ltd.) and "The > interpretation of cosmic & mystical experiences". > > Leslie A.Shepard"s Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology > gives a lot of valuable information, but it is expensive. > > Let me conclude in saying that whether Karma, reincarnation or > other Theosophic principles are true or not, they instill a sense > of responsibility in those who belief in them in the right way. > I am not opposed to them as a popular faith therefore. If the > myth of the masters helped to introduce them it has served its > purpose. After all: what religion can do without myth?