Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00001)

Dear Leon,

Thanks for your message.  It's possible that the University of Vienna is a 
fine institution in every respect, especially given its history as such.  If 
that is so, perhaps the problem here may be that whoever was responsible at 
UV for selecting material for this project is not knowledgeable enough of 
this particular subject, or does have a bias against the TS and/or HPB while 
making the assumption that such a bias is academically justified.  I wonder 
if anyone on this list has any contact with the UV, especially the relevant 
parties in this case, and contribute towards correcting this error?
If there is no such person on this list, perhaps you, Leon, might want to 
address them.  After all, now you have double karma on this issue!  First, 
because of your family pedigree at the UV.  Then, because of your "hasty" 
defense of the UV.  Just kidding.  But seriously, this could conceivably be 
just an "inocent" error on someone's part, or in any case one which may be 
corrected.
I am convinced that the time has come when HPB and her work will be 
increasingly recognized and respected everywhere, especially in academic 
circles.  I have seen two or three documentaries on the cable A&E channel, in 
which HPB has been referred to quite respectfully, in academic contexts.  And 
more books are coming out now, in which the same is true.
So I believe it would not be a "forlorn hope" type of activity to try to 
correct the error (though it's worth correcting, even if the attempt seems to 
be a forlorn hope).
My best to all,
Aryel

In a message dated 5/10/00 12:09:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
LeonMaurer@aol.com writes:

<< Aryel,
 
 You are absolutely correct.  I did misunderstand Frank's position and was 
too 
 hasty in my response, but I had no chance to evaluate my first judgment 
since 
 my initial, off-the-top-of-my-head response was accidentally mailed before I 
 had a chance to review it in a less impulsive mood.:-)  Upon rereading it, I 
 realized my mistake, but it was too late to recall. Afterward, I carefully 
 read the entire Paul Johnson material at the U of Vienna site and understood 
 what a pernicious and biased article it was and that Frank's position was 
 entirely justified.  Thank you for your clarifications, which I fully agree 
 with. 
 
 I hope this clears the record, as I now withdraw my apparent defense of the 
 University of Vienna -- which could very well be a hotbed of Neo Nazi 
 propaganda, and materialistic prejudice these days.  Since my Grandfather, a 
 freemason who was far from being a materialist, attended that school in the 
 late nineteenth Century, I assumed it had not changed its stripes. Good 
 lesson... And reminds me that the CIA was once a very liberal minded 
 organization during its World War II OSS days when several of my old 
 idealistic friends served in it. Shows us all, that it's dangerous to rely 
on 
 "established authority's" past records. 
 
 LHM
 
 
 In a message dated 05/09/00 5:31:47 PM, ASANAT@aol.com writes:
 
 >In a message dated 4/17/00 5:09:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
 >LeonMaurer@aol.com writes:
 >
 ><< 
 > In a message dated 04/16/00 3:00:02 AM, ringding@blinx.de writes:
 > 
 > >O no, not again that idiotic pseudo-scientific and pseudo-
 > >theosophical fairy tale book.
 > >
 > >If the University of Vienna calls on their web-site this really 
 > >an "scientific" book we first have to talk about what is Science.
 > >Frank
 > 
 > Oh no, not again... Another idiotic prejudgement based on nothing more 
than 
 > rumors -- that attempt to denigrate theosophy without any knowledge of
 > what it really teaches.  Shades of the 1890s British Psychical Society, and
 > the other "Luddites" prior to that time -- and afterwards. 
 > 
 > The teachings of theosophy have to be taken on their own thoroughly 
 > understood merits...  And, no research (valid or not) by historical 
 scholars, 
 > attempting to prove or disprove the truth or falsity of HPB's claims about
 > her association with "Masters of Wisdom" has any value in that respect.
 >
 > Perhaps you ought to read the Mission Statement as well as the history of 
 > the University of Vienna before doubting its authority as one of the 
 foremost
 >world class centers of scientific teachings and religious philosophies.
 >>>
 >
 >Dear Leon:
 >
 >Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you grossly misunderstood 
what 
 >Frank said.  You wrote an extremely long e-mail in response to him, 
basically
 >defending the University of Vienna.  But Frank did not mention the UV at
 >all.  He was complaining (and rightly so, in my humble view) about J. Paul 
 >Johnson's books.
 >
 >I think JPJ has done us all a great service in one respect:  In his work, 
he 
 >has shown -- beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that HPB DID know personally a 
 >number of scholars and adventurers of her time.  That fact confirms the 
fact 
 >that she did travel around the world as a very serious student -- that she, 
 >like them, was a scholar & world-trotter, a female Indiana Jones of her 
 time. 
 > Since her travels had been disputed by many authors (who, now we know
 >for sure, thanks to JPJ, did not have the evidence for their unsupported 
 >OPINIONS), JPJ has done a great service to HPB scholarship, in that sense.
 >
 >But when it comes to the subject of the Masters, JPJ turns out to be no
 >better than HPB's best detractors of former times, who seemed to feel it 
was 
 >"open season" on her, without the need to provide evidence.  JPJ claims
 >in all of his books that there were no Masters at all in early TS history, 
& 
 >that HPB INVENTED them (as others had claimed she had invented her travels).
 >But JPJ DELIBERATELY ignores the main sources of evidence for their real
 >physical existence.  To my mind, although there are other sources, the
 >main are three:
 >
 >1.  Colonel Henry Steel Olcott's six volumes of Old Diary Leaves, backed
 >by archival material.  Olcott provided numerous signed affidavits of the 
 >physical visits of the Masters, in the period covered between 1874-1907.
 > 
 >These affidavits were signed by a number of people who met the Masters
 >physically, many of whom had no connection with the TS, & therefore no
 >apparent reason to lie.  The signings of these affidavits were in turn
 >witnessed by third parties, in every instance.
 >
 >Olcott earned his rank in the Civil War because of his radical honesty,
 >capacity to detect fraud, & tremendous courage:  He was in charge of 
 >investigating fraud & graft in the military during the war, saved the 
country
 >millions of dollars (what would be billions in today's market), & put away
 >quite a number of criminals, who often threatened his life.  That is why he 
 >was put in charge of the then extremely sensitive investigation into the
 >assassination of President Lincoln, because of the very high esteem in
 >which he was held by both those of the North & the South.
 >
 >Throughout his life, Olcott was at various times a scientist (he wrote
 >an important book on sorghum), a lawyer, and a journalist.  All these 
 >professions require having a very sharp mind, and the ability not to be
 >easily duped.  Further, he was one of the most highly respected psychic
 >investigators of his time (until just before he met HPB, when his life
 >changed), because of all the psychic frauds he exposed.
 >
 >JPJ NEVER mentions the evidence carefully collected over so many years by 
 >Olcott.  The only possible explanations I can think of for this neglectare 
 >either that JPJ is ignorant of Olcott's overwhelming evidence, or thathe 
had 
 >a preconceived opinion before he began doing his "research."  If he was
 >ignorant of Olcott's critical evidence, he is no researcher, since that
 >should have been a major source for his work.  If he knew Olcott's vital
 >evidence, but deliberately hid it from his readers, he is no researcher,
 >because in that case he is more interested in promoting an opinion for
 >which he KNOWS there is no evidence.  In either case, he is no researcher.
 >
 >2.  Geoffrey Barborka, in The Mahatmas and Their Letters, provides 
additional
 >evidence for the physical existence of the Masters in that period.  JPJ 
does 
 >not address this scholarly research, just as he had not addressed Olcott's
 >evidence.
 >
 >3.  In my book The Inner Life of Krishnamurti, I provide what I think is 
 very 
 >strong evidence to the effect that J. Krishnamurti had a very close contact
 >with the Masters throughout his very long life, from the time when he was
 >a boy, until 10 days before he died.  For reasons I give there, I believe 
 this 
 >evidence to be even stronger than that of Olcott.  Briefly, it provides, in 
 >addition to that of the Masters' physical presence throughout K's life, the 
 >internal evidence of a teaching that I show in my work to be at the leading
 >edge of philosophy, psychology, and education, among other fields.  JPJ
 >ignores this, as well.
 >
 >If the University of Vienna considers such to be the level of quality of
 >the research it looks for, then, no matter how successful in other areas, in
 >this particular instance the UV is supporting PREJUDICE, not RESEARCH.  As I
 >think I have shown here, that is a FACT.
 >
 >I agree with you that, in the end, HPB's relationship to the Masters is not 
 >so much what matters, as the intrinsic worth of her work.  On the other 
 hand, 
 >if there were Masters physically present in her life, as she said all along,
 >that fact needs to be taken into account in any FAIR presentation of the
 >facts.  To assume, in blatant disregard for the facts, that something is 
not 
 >the case simply because one decides personally that it cannot be (perhaps
 >>for some idiotic reason), does not do honor to ANY university, nor to any 
 >self-respecting theosophist.
 >
 >In good cheer,
 >
 >Aryel  >>

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.