Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00225)

I have followed the discussions by Paul Johnson and others for
some time regarding the lack of offical endorsement by the
"Leader of the Wheaton TS", etc.  They have termed this
"squelching".

As a member of the Atlanta Lodge, I have talked with Mr.  Johnson
only briefly, and read his book - but I do recall that his book
"In Search of the Masters", which he autographed for me, was
"pushed" in Atlanta, and also at the Mid-South Federation
meetings.  I have not seen any "squelching" of his book among the
membership.  It should, like all books, rise or fall based upon
the merits of its style and content.  And so it has.  If Mr.
Johnson equates "squelching" with a lack of offical endorsement
of his conclusions about the Masters, then he is being highly
unrealistic and more than a little immature.

He and his supporters in this discussion appear to complain about
the non-acceptance of the conclusions of his research into the
Masters - "his ideas should not be squelched" they say, and
denounce the lack of support as a violation of certain principles
of Theosophy.  In this, they miss their mark.  Mr.  Johnson
should realize that his conclusions about the Masters contradicts
much of the common understanding of the Masters within the four
Theosophical movements known to me.

They also forget that the duty of the leaders of any organization
include the support of those ideas to which the group subscribes.
Mr.  Johnson seems to ignore the reality that the publication of
his book by the TPH would have been tantamount to an official
endorsement of the substance and conclusions of the book.
Likewise, an offical endorsement by Dr.  Algeo would carry the
same weight.  Is the denial of this official endorsement, which
would have been a personal vindication of his long and arduous
research, and greatly increased book sales, not the real cause of
the problem here?

Given the conclusions of Mr.  Johnson's book, it is and was
highly unrealistic for him to expect the praise of those who see
the Master's in a different light.  Non-endorsement is not the
same as "squelching!" This is an important distinction.
Divergent ideas should and must always be tolerated, permitted,
allowed, etc., for the truths and new insights they they may
offer.  This being true, where is the duty on the part of the
leaders of the group to officially endorse idvergent ideas which
materially contradict the current wisdom these leaders are
charged with promulgating?

Toleration does not necessarily mean endorsement, nor does it
mean that all ideas must be uncritically accepted and accorded
the same worth.  To do so would be a violation of our duty as
Theosophists to develop our capacity to discriminate between
ideas in our search for the truth.  Mr.  Johnson's book hasn't
been squelched, it appears just not to have been endorsed.  For
Mr.  Johnson to complain of this is like authors complaining that
Opra has squelched their books because she didn't endorse them on
her show, and thereby give it instant best-seller status.

As a published author myself, I do understand how years of
research and effort can make one seek the vindication of one's
labors through acceptance of their end product, the book, by
one's peers.  Writers put much of themselves into their books,
and when their conclusions are not widely praised, or slighted,
they tend to take it personally.

In short, anyone who seeks the public's attention by speaking or
writing must be thick-skinned enough to realize that he will
never find universal acceptance, much less the overwhelming
endorsement of those charged with protecting the current wisdom.
Mr.  Johnson should grow up.  He should publish his findings for
their own sake and for the good that he belives his truths may
offer others.  For Mr.  Johnson to quit the Theosophical Society
because his divergent ideas were not officially endorsed, and
because he received the criticism of a few Theosophists, a
criticism that he must have anticipated, greatly lessens his
stature in my eyes.

In that respect, while "divergent" ideas within any group,
including Theosophy, should and must be "tolerated"