Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00162)

According to owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com:

Before replying to Dallas, let me reproduce the offending
sentence:
> >
> > There is a whole laundry list of issues that Theosophists debate
> > and fight about but cannot seem to calmly discuss. Leadbeater's
> > relationships with his pupils, HPB's untruths, Judge's
> > dispute with Olcott, and on and on. All things I'd like to
> > discuss, but have been flamed for trying to.

Clearly there is no statement that "HPB told untruths," but
rather a statement that the issue of her untruths, whether or not
she was guilty of them, cannot even be broached among
Theosophists because immediate "flaming" results.  This despite,
I might add, a great number of accounts from people who knew her
who concluded that she did not always tell the truth, and the
weight of the majority of books about her by non-Theosophists.

First, Dallas, thank you for providing immediate and overwhelming
proof of the statement that I in fact made.  Second, you can call
me "Johnson" or "Mr. Johnson" and talk about me in the third
person all you want.  I'll address you in the second person, call
you "Dallas" and otherwise try to show you a better way to
communicate with those of differing points of view.

You wrote:
>
> I PROTEST AGAIN to Mr. Johnson.

If you're addressing me, call me Paul and use the second person.
>
> I have no special credentials to advance, nor have I published
> any books that I want to advertise.

And the implication is that my discussion of any issues about HPB
is motivated by the desire to advertise the books and thus gain
either money or fame.  Do you really think that immediately
sinking to speculative personal attack gains you anything in the
eyes of those who read what you have to say?

  I do not deal in innuendo or
> slander, and especially of the "dead."  I am offended by those
> who traffic in sensationalism, especially when it is directed
> against those who can no longer respond or refute.

One would not think that a university press book comprised
overwhelmingly of biographical data about obscure 19th century
figures would be considered "sensationalist."

snip
>
> It proved necessary for Mr. Daniel Caldwell to analyze and refute
> Mr. Johnson's thesis in his essay: " Mr. Johnson's HOUSE OF
> CARDS."  To this no adequate response has come from Mr. Johnson
> that I have seen or read.

A lengthy response is found on David Lane's website at
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane, but the odds of your considering
anything I might write "adequate" is about the same as the odds
of Congressman Burton deciding that Bill and Hillary are innocent
and should be let alone.
>
>  After reading Mr. Johnson's book concerning the supposed
> identities of the Masters, I asked him for proofs or facts on
> which he based his speculations.

Not only is this erroneous, but it is false in a way that is
directly responsible for my refusal to answer you.  Your letter
was actually written in response to a 1993 article I wrote for
Gnosis, largely comprised of the intro to The Masters Revealed
which was not yet published.  You wrote me a long protest in the
same tone you now adopt, asking (no, demanding) proof of
everything I said which you did not like.  I wrote back politely
saying that such proof could be found in my books and that I
could hardly repeat it all in a letter.  You immediately wrote
back saying "I have read your books and found no such proof."
In fact, I had only one book in print at that time, a
self-published one, yet you were already claiming to have read
more than one.  It was clear at that point that you were writing
to harass me rather than to communicate for any good reason.

 None have so far been advanced.
> I protested then against his statements.  I protest now.

Protest all you like, but the actual statement is one that you
are proving-- one cannot raise the issue of HPB's possible
untruths without someone going ballistic and preventing any calm,
friendly discussion.
>
> Mr. Johnson says he visited India for about 6 or 8 weeks some
> years ago.  He made comments in his book concerning the Masters
> that I considered derogatory to their dignity.

That's your right, but I certainly did not intend to be
derogatory of the *real Masters* despite sometimes being
skeptical about the way they were presented.  Most readers
understood that, I believe.

  I consider myself
> as one who owes an enormous debt to Them and to HPB.  I therefore
> protested direct to Mr. Johnson and to his publishers and
> challenged the accuracy of his statements.

No, actually you wrote to the editor of Gnosis because at that
point the publisher of the forthcoming book was not known.  If
you ever wrote to SUNY Press it is news to me.

Hope this clears the air somewhat.  More in response to Daniel
later, suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly welcome his change
of tone and hope it is permanent.

Cheers,
Paul