Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00167)

Paul Johnson:

If KPJ is correct concerning John Algeo's and Dara Eklund's
views, then I for one would be on Johnson's side of this issue.

And I have had various Theosophical students tell me VERY similar
things:

> 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 that to identify the Masters with historical figures is to
> "downgrade" them

I simply don't understand such "views".  And when I have
protested against or questioned such views, I have even been told
that I am SIMPLY a "researcher" and couldn't understand these
things as a "student" of theosophy would (or should)!!

Slap across the face.  .  .  .  Ohhhhhh.

Johnson maintains that Dr.  Algeo's point of view is as follows:

> 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.

I have no idea what Algeo's viewpoint is since I have never
spoken to him on this subject.  I would hope that Dr.  Algeo's
view is not as Johnson characterizes it.

I maintain that one *might* be able to discover and "know who the
Masters were in terms of historical identities." By saying that,
I don't mean that one CAN with any degree of certainty ascertain
their historical identities.  * There may not be enough exant
evidence to do the job! * Also it depends on how concrete or
nebulous your theories are; also how often these theories seem to
"shape-shift" into some new "form" with infinite shades of gray.

These are some of the reasons why I have grave reservations about
Johnson's theories about KH and M.  I believe that Johnson's work
(although it can get people to thinking about issues conerning
the Masters) also needlessly *obscures* and *complicates* many of
the real issues, "facts" and evidence.

Let's face it.  Historical research is HARD work even under the
BEST of conditions.  The researcher has to gather all the
relevant primary sources, has to anaylze them, become as familiar
as he can with the "facts", etc.  This can take hard work
extending over a period of years.  Some of the work is quite
boring and often after poring over documents for hours and days,
one can come away with glazed eyes and a terrific headache.  Then
the researcher can spend weeks, months and even years trying to
track down relevant documents.  Some you find; others have
literally vanished.  Sometimes you find very valuable documents
in the hands of other people but they are unwilling to share
copies with you.  Then you find that most (?) Theosophists are
totally uninterested in Theosophical history and could care less
about such endeavors.  Then some Theosophists call you simply a
mere "researcher" while others consider you part of some
"theosophical orthodoxy"! Then you discover that various
Theosophical and non-Theosophical authors have done slipshod
research, making the difficult job EVEN MORE DIFFICULT!

Etc., etc.  Believe me, this kind of work can be rewarding but it
does have its fair share of frustrations!! It is probably easier
just to have "intuitions", "psychic perceptions" and "simple
belief" and not struggle with those "darn physical facts"! They
seem to get in the way!