Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00231)

BJack5259@aol.com:

> 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".

Endorsement? Who said anything about endorsement? Acknowledgment
of the book's existence is the issue as it relates to Adyar.
Excessively hostile and personal criticism is the issue as it
relates to various people in America.

> 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.

Talking different books here.  But Adyar likewise failed to
acknowledge that one with a review.

> 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.

You are being highly personal and missing the point entirely.
It's not my book that was squelched so much as the legitimacy of
the inquiry it pursues, in the Theosophist piece and many
comments made elsewhere including by Dr.  Algeo.

> He and his supporters in this discussion appear to complain about
> the non-acceptance of the conclusions of his research into the
> Masters - "his

"Appear" is the key word; meaning "to you." No way! It would be
preposterous to expect that.  The problem is non-acceptance of
the value of inquiry into the subject.

> 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.

He does.

> They also forget that the duty of the leaders of any organization
> include the support of those ideas to which the group subscribes.

Here we get to the heart of the matter.  The Theosophical
Society--Adyar subscribes officially ONLY to its Three Objects;
unofficially to the three fundamental propositions of the Secret
Doctrine.  Beliefs about the Masters are entirely individual, as
has been repeatedly insisted upon by HPB, Olcott, and the
Masters' letters.  I can think of no point that is made clearer
in the literature than that.  There is *no* idea about the
Masters to which the Society officially 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.

Certainly not so.  There are disclaimers in front of every
magazine of the TS, as I recall, saying that the views of each
article are those of the author and not the Society.  Similarly
with TPH books; no one to my knowledge has ever taken them as
official TS doctrine, as to do so would fly in the face of the
fundamental principle that *there is no such thing.* You also
should realize that TPH didn't just reject publication of the
work, but thereby the opportunity to critique and shape its final
form which might have been very different had they accepted it.

> Likewise, an offical endorsement by Dr.  Algeo would carry the
> same weight.

Therefore, favorable reviews in the official journals of the
Australian, French, and English sections meant that the book was
being endorsed officially by the Society there? No way! Just what
do you mean by "endorsement" anyhow? Was Joy Mills's favorable
review in The Quest an official "endorsement" which then had to
be undone by an equal and opposite reaction in the AT from John
Algeo?

> 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?

I assure you that there is no such thing as official endorsement
in the TS, that book sales were just fine thank you, and the
"real cause of the problem" depends on what you think the problem
is.  By the way, Dr.  Algeo's attacks on the book came far too
late to impact sales, which had already peaked.  They may have
hurt the sequel though.

> 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!"

Agree 100%.  But what happened to Tillett was definitely
squelching.  And the vehemence of Dr.  Algeo's remarks, which
came close to accusations of heresy, verged on squelching but did
not cross the line.  Adyar's choice to run an article with the
book's name, but which in fact did not refer directly to the book
and simply indirectly dismissed the entire field of inquiry, was
definitely squelching.

> 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.

You have erected a straw man from the very beginning of your
post, and you keep beating away at it mercilessly.  But none of
this has much of anything to do with the issue at hand.

> Mr. Johnson should grow up.

Thank you for your personal concern.

> 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.

I did *not* resign from the TS for that reason at all, but
allowed my membership to lapse in the wake of the by-laws changes
and a host of unsavory revelations about Adyar and Wheaton.  It
lapsed just last winter, long after all this happened.  You
misread this too: what I said was that I felt perfectly
comfortable in the lodges in DC and Baltimore, and the whole
Mid-Atlantic region where I am known (and where my ideas have
never been officially endorsed, and in fact people are freely
critical of them) but that I felt exiled insofar as attendance at
national functions goes because there were so many people so
filled with fury and outrage.  That alone would not cause me to
resign if I continued to have faith in the organization.  Had you
been on theos-l you would have been aware of all the issues that
caused quite a number of people to lose faith in Wheaton and
Adyar, which had nothing to do with me and my writings.

My experience with the TS--Adyar has been about 90% positive, and
my "problem" is with the authoritarian way the top officials
think and operate.  Part of that is their tendency to try to
control members' thinking and I am only one small beneficiary of
that large problem.

Since you are being so free with such personal criticism it would
be nice to know who you are.