Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00352)

Paul,

Again thanks for your reply.

But my major point doesn't just apply to the *paranormal*.
I was referring to the various attitudes/behaviors of the
"scholars/scientists" to prejudge things, etc. etc.  See what Hyman
writes.  This can be applied to subjects other than the paranormal.

You write:

> What I was referring to was the scholarship in history of
> religions that has unfolded in the last century, and the
> understanding of the development of various tradition.

But much of this "scholarship" has a materialistic view of religion.
There is a tendency to reduce things to "physical" explanations, etc.

Religion is full of the paranormal.  And what is the attitude of the
typical "religious historian" on this aspect/dimension of religion?

Again, I do not know how the religious historians would vote about THE
MAHATMA LETTERS. I assume that probably the majority of them would vote
as you suggest.  But that doesn't surprise me.  Nor does that convince
me that they are right.  Similarly I am not convinced or impressed by
the arguments of scholars/scientists/PhDs who continue to deny the
reality of paranormal phenomena.  The majority of psychologists still
don't believe in the paranormal.  Does that majority vote
influence/impress you to also disbelieve?

So with the religious historians.  I would certainly want to know their
reasons and arguments.  But I would have to go over the evidence and
understand their reasoning myself.  I would not be convinced by the fact
that the majority had voted that way.  Even if it was 100-0.

I watched almost every moment of the first O.J. Simpson trial.  Even
though the jury found him "Not Guilty" I was reasonably convinced based
on my assessment of the evidence that Simpson was the murderer of Nicole
Simpson and Ron Goldman.  I had no *reasonable* doubt to the contrary.
If I had been on the jury, it would have been a hung jury.

So based on what you say about your proposed experiment with 100
religious historians, are you telling us that YOU are convinced that
H.P. Blavatsky wrote THE MAHATMA LETTERS?  In other words, Blavatsky
created/produced the teachings to be found in those letters?  But I
thought you believed/suggested that Thakur Singh was also involved
(somehow) in the "writing" of the Mahatma Letters??  And even Olcott?

Daniel





K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
> I wasn't thinking at all of the *paranormal* aspects of the issue
> when saying that HPB's claims about a single occult tradition
> would be overwhelmingly rejected by scholars.  Yes, you are right
> that the scholarly world has accomplished very little in this
> domain that would command respect from Theosophists or anyone
> else.
>
> What I was referring to was the scholarship in history of
> religions that has unfolded in the last century, and the
> understanding of the development of various traditions.  While
> HPB's claims in the SD about Senzar, and all esotericism being
> historically rooted in a single body of knowledge, etc., have a
> certain appeal to them, that appeal is to the mythopoetic
> imagination.
>
> What I would predict, for example, is that if the Mahatma Letters
> were presented to an assortment of religious historians and only
> a single question was asked-- "Is this system of teaching something that
> could have been preserved in India or Tibet for centuries,
> or is it the product of a synthesizing Westerner of the 19th
> century?"-- the answer of a panel of say 100
> experts would be 100-0 in favor of the latter.  That is leaving
> aside all questions of the paranormal faculties of HPB, the
> status of Masters, etc., the handwriting of the letters, and is
> simply an issue of the history of ideas.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul