Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00020)

At 10:13 31.10.1997
Brant Jackson <BJack5259@aol.com> wrote:

>"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."

 Dear Brant.

 Can you please tell us more about those:

 > "four Theosophical movements"

Best wishes,

Sveinn Freyr

At 10:13 31.10.1997 -0500, you wrote:

>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?
>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"