Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00074)

Thank you, Brant, for offering an opportunity to clarify some
misunderstandings:

According to BJack5259@aol.com:
> Let me confess my personal bias: I don't particularly care about the
> ultimate truth or falsity of Johnson's writings at the moment. That was not
> the issue to me.

It hasn't been the issue for anyone in this debate, but rather
whether or not the reception of those writings provides any
evidence of Theosophical fundamentalism. Agreed? That's the
issue-- fundamentalism-- that was on the table when I piped up.

 I personally believe that we must each find our own version
> of the truth, and divergent views aid us all in that endeavor. Paul
> Johnson's book, regardless of what I personally think of its conclusions,
> needs to be examined and debated like any other piece of scholarship. An
> example would be the controversy in biblical scholarship between the
> "minimalists", who may be said to find in the Bible a minimal amount of
> actual history (to grossly oversimplify the issue) and the other camps.

OK. In that case would you agree that there is something
unsatisfying about the a society headquartered in India, with
its largest national section in India, ignoring a book of this
kind even though it is mostly about India and the society? Or
about its "noticing" the book in such an oblique and dismissive
way? Seemed pretty weird to me.

> In that regard, the controversy over the accuracy of Mr. Johnson's data
> and conclusions (and those of other divergent views as well,) is both healthy
> and normal. Such controversy is considered necessary in the scientific and
> historical disciplines, as well as the field of law, with which I am very
> familiar, to test the worth of a writer's offering.

Yes, and there has been plenty of healthy and normal
controversy about the work, which is all to the good.
I would cite Michael Ashcraft's recent review of Initiates in
Theosophical History, or Stephen Prothero's piece in Religiouos
Studies Review.

> My problem with Mr. Johnson is that he seems to take normal criticism so
> personally.

Brant, I ask you to read Daniel Caldwell's and David Pratt's
Website criticism, and John Algeo's two reviews of TMR carefully,
asking yourself "is this kind of criticism normal, or what I think
should be normal among Theosophists, or is it personal in nature to a
degree that is objectionable?" If you can honestly put
yourself in the shoes of someone receiving this kind of
criticism from within the same spiritual movement, and not feel
something to be inappropriate here, then we can just agree to
disagree, and hang out in different groups. But don't make a
priori judgments about "normal" criticism without really
examining it to see if that is an accurate description.

 This causes two problems for me: first, the sense that I get is
> that he takes the criticism of certain persons who seem to be pointing out
> errors in his methods as an attack upon himself personally rather than a
> legitimate inquiry into his research methods and conclusions.

Brant, the great majority of response to the books, including
criticisms, have not been personally hostile and represent
legitimate discourse. But a strong minority response has both
attacked the subject area in itself, and the writer personally.

 The latter are
> always fair grounds for inquiry, while the former should not be. Why cannot
> he not remove his personality from the debate about the nature of the
> Masters.

Excellent question! Why can't I remove my personality from the
debate? Could be that I don't have control over the way
Theosophists frame issues? In the present case, you are
placing my personality at the very center of the debate, and
are about the tenth Theosophist to do so.

> Second, and this was the reason for my response, he has taken what I
> consider the normal criticism of an academic work, and turned it into a
> divisive issue to further undermine and split the Theosophical movement.

How in the world could that happen?

> This is what troubles me. It seems that in taking criticism of his
> conclusions so personally, Mr. Johnson and others have responded by alleging
> that his critics are Theosophical hypocrits and Theosophical Fundamentalists.

Brant, you're either oblivious to the point or willfully
ignoring it. The heavily personal nature of the attacks on the
books have led me and others to consider that those who make
them are reacting out of Theosophical fundamentalism, which they
conceal while claiming hypocritically to be disinterested objective
critics.

I salute Mr. Pratt because he is 100% up front about his view
of the Masters and his objections to mine, and there is not a
trace of hypocrisy in his presentation. That's why it needs no
answer; there are no hidden assumptions to challenge as they
are all laid out for readers to investigate.

> This "ad hominum" argument is ultimately distructive to the essential unity
> of the Theosophical movement, and its concept of brotherhood.

Ain't I a hominem? Aren't you focusing relentlessly on a
personality and thus showing what happens to the concept of
brotherhood in the Theosophical movement when an unpopular idea
is on the table?


Beg pardon. I left the TS-Adyar but remain a member of
TS--Pasadena, a longer-lasting affiliation in the first place,
and also consider the ARE a part of the wider movement. Nor
have I left the company of Adyar-affiliated lodges but simply
memberhship in the Parent Society.

 and
> then touting the open and uncritical acceptance of ARE (which doesn't have a
> dog in this fight) as a better and more "spiritual" group -

Huh? Uncritical? Check it out yourself; I've just pointed out some
advantages in the institutional climate as an author of
"heretical" books observes the group.

 calls into
> question one's committment to Theosophy. By the way, having belonged to
> ARE, I suspect that if Mr. Johnson wrote a book critical of the fundamental
> assumptions about Edgar Cayce, he would once again draw strong criticism from
> members of that group as well. Where would he go then?

Mr. Johnson has done so. He received astoundingly generous
cooperation from the ARE, the Edgar Cayce Foundation, the Cayce
family, and many individual Cayce scholars like the late Harmon
Bro. Precisely the opposite of the situation with the
inaccessible Dr. Algeo and Mme. Burnier; the Cayce people took
time to read early drafts, make dozens of suggestions each for
revisions or enhancements, and therefore tremendously enrich
the result *which is still the most critical study of
fundamental assumptions about Edgar Cayce* ever to appear in
book form. I don't endorse everything about ARE because I
don't know everything about them. But fundamentalism is a far
greater danger to the Theosophical movement than to ARE at this
time, and my experience allows for a very informed comparison.
Edgar Cayce in Context, subtitled The Readings: Truth and
Fiction will be out next summer. Thanks for asking.
Don't know what kind of individual attacks it will generate,
but they won't have institutional support and the book won't
get ignored/squelched.

> I am running out of time, My basic point is that one who undertakes to
> publish divergent views of "accepted teachings" should be realistic about the
> examination and criticism of his research and conclusions that he will
> undertake, and be prepared to defend his conclusions in light of that
> criticism.

Aw, come on, you can't look at my voluminous responses to
Algeo, Caldwell and many other critics and deny my willingness
to defend the conclusions!

 Mr. Johnson's protests that the issue is that people oppose his
> right to do this research.

NO! Rather, that people oppose the introduction of the topic
of the Masters' historical identities into the discourse of any
of the Theosophical groups. Not all people, and not all the
time as my mainly favorable reviews indicate. Nor is that
opposition always active rather than passive. But it is fatal
to progress away from the fundamentalist status quo.

 If this is so, then I would agree with him that
> such a position is so patently absurd and anti-Theosophical that it can be
> dismissed without further comment. - and it should have been handled that
> way. I suspect that Mr. Johnson's personal feelings are at stake, not an
> issue of academic freedom.

That's an unrealistic either/or. I've got personal feelings
not just about my own work, but about those of colleagues in
such movements as Baha'i and Radhasoami who have gotten on the
wrong side of the powers that be. The issue is much bigger
than the organized Theosophical movement: people resist, and
get angry and personal about, ideas that challenge their belief
systems. How those in positions of authority deal with this
tendency is a measure of their support of intellectual freedom
in deed rather than just word.

 Given this, to counterattack that
> non-acceptance of his conclusions by attempting to split the movement further
> with personal attacks upon his critics is very harmful to the movement - and
> this must be opposed in the name of freedom of inquiry and brotherhood!

Heroic, but another red herring. Non-acceptance of my
conclusions is *where I myself stand* and would never try to
punish anyone else for sharing the same lack of certainty.
There's an awful lot of misreading another's words and ideas,
and then attacking the straw man you have erected, in your
posts about me. But perhaps the need to save the movement and
its freedom of inquiry and brotherhood required you to do so,
rather than seek clarification first. I
guess you are destined to see personal attacks where you want
to see them, and not see them where you don't want to. But
would you really be so myopic as to deny that your posts have
been a personal attack on me, and my replies have ignored your
personality and focused on substance? Think about it.


Cheers,
KPJ

PS-- You attributed JRC's sentiments re TPH to me. I am glad
that the publication arrangements worked out as they did and
had no hard feelings at all about ending up with SUNY. Was
perfectly friendly to John Algeo long after all that occurred,
until in fact the tone of his reviews let to a [perfectly
normal to my non-Theosophist friends who read them]
reevaluation of my position in the society and support for its
leadership. Even then I stayed on for another 18 months until
concluding that the problem of authoritarian dogmatism at the top was
far bigger than my own little troubles, and insoluble.