Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00149)

My last word for now on my own experience with Theosophical
fundamentalism, unless someone else brings it up.  To clarify the
reception of The Masters Revealed within and outside the movement
in terms of reviews, a list of those I remember in chronological
order:

1.  Claire Walker, Reflections of a Theosophist, highly
favorable.

2.  John Cooper, Theosophy in Australia, highly favorable.

3.  Edward Hower, New York Times Book Review, rave.

4.  Joy Mills, The Quest, moderately to highly favorable.

5.  Geoffrey Farthing, Theosophical Journal, ditto.

6.  John Algeo, The American Theosophist, scathing.

7.  John Algeo, Theosophical History, strongly negative with some
mild praise.

8.  The Skeptic, unnamed reviewer, rave (but brief.)

9.  Michel Caracostea, Le Lotus Bleu, moderately favorable.

10.  Richard Smoley, Parabola, moderately favorable.

11.  Dara Eklund, The Theosophist, a special case (see below.)

12.  Kenneth Hurst, can't remember the journal title, moderately
favorable.

13.  Stephen Prothero, Religious Studies Review, slightly
favorable.  (He reviewed four books and was scathing about
Cranston's HPB, strongly negative about Washington's Madame
Blavatsky's Baboon, moderately favorable about Godwin's The
Theosophical Enlightenment, and strongly favorable about
Carlson's No Religion Higher Than Truth.)

In a highly favorable review of Washington in the New York Review
of Books, Frederick Crews gave a mixed mention of my books,
accusing them of being "pious" and "deferential" toward HPB(!)

Obviously, I'm in no position to bitch about how the book was
received either in or outside Theosophy *generally.* But after a
string of praise in Theosophical journals, the pieces by Algeo
and more particularly Eklund gave a clear signal that the subject
was to be squelched.  Thereafter nothing more was heard of it in
Theosophical publications to my knowledge.

Elsewhere I've answered Algeo's criticisms.  Here I'll just say
that he totally misreads the thesis, attributes beliefs and
motives to me which are far, far from the truth, and invents a
few scholarly errors that are simply not there-- all of which can
be judged by readers of the July and October 1995 issues of
Theosophical History in which his review and my reply appear.
None of those things, however, amount to "squelching"-- just one
man's opinion.  The fact that the same man had rejected the book
for TPH raises some ethical questions but that's beside the
point.  What is precisely my point is the bottom line of Algeo's
review, found in these passages: "The view one takes of
Blavatsky's Masters consequently reflects one's metaphysical
assumptions about reality and one's experience of the reality
they represent, rather than a conclusion based upon documented
fact and reason" and the concluding line "He has not touched the
mystery." The implication is not just that the *answers* I offer
are wrong, but that the *questions* are.  That it is impossible
to know who the Masters were in terms of historical identities,
and therefore a flawed project from the start and one that no one
should ever try to do better than I.  Any doubt that this was the
party line of the TS-- "Don't go there" in essence-- was removed
by The Theosophist's non-review of the book.  This publication
has once before disdained mentioning a book that it didn't want
its readers to read, in the case of Gregory Tillett.  Never
naming him or The Elder Brother, Radha Burnier after its
publication ran an editorial in which she said that there was
some book out there attacking Leadbeater but it was all malicious
lies.  End of discussion.  In my case, Dara Eklund wrote an
article entitled "The Masters Revealed" presenting the case that
the only way to know the Masters was through service, devotion,
etc.  Without mentioning my name or my book, this leading
Theosophical journal told readers who knew how to read between
the lines that not only were the book and author not worth
mentioning, but that the entire idea of historical research on
HPB's sponsors was just plain misguided.  Elsewhere Dara has
written that to identify the Masters with historical figures is
to "downgrade" them, so it is clear where she stands on the
matter.  What I wonder is how she feels about the squelching of
Tillett's book and discussion of it, and participating in a
parallel squelch of another book in the same publication.

I wouldn't despair of Theosophical fundamentalism's death grip on
the movement so much if it were just my work that was being
rejected here.  But what is really being rejected is the whole
idea that it might be worthwhile to pursue historical research
about the Masters to find out more about HPB's sources and
sponsorship.  That is flagrantly parallel to fundamentalist
Christians who denounce the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, not
for their specific reconstructions of the historical Jesus so
much as for the impiety of taking sacred history and approaching
it as scholarly detectives.

The bottom line is that the quasi official position has been
stated to be that *historical* truth about the Masters and HPB is
not worth pursuing; we've got our *spiritual* truth and that's
good enough for us.  The sweat and blood of real human history
can only contaminate our sacred myth if brought into contact with
it.  Welcome to the world of fundamentalism!

Well, OK, I'm outta here.  But fortunately Edgar Cayce hasn't
been elevated to quite such an exalted status by his followers,
and historical research into his sources appears to be as
favorably viewed by the A.R.E.  leadership as the previous
project was unfavorably viewed by the Theosophical organizations.