Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00058)

Dallas Tenbroeck and Frank Reitemeyer on the material by Brigitte Muehlegger
and K. Paul Johnson

Dear Dallas and Frank,

I know that both of you are sincere students of Theosophy. You have both
been helpful in assisting me from time to time on various research concerning
Madame Blavatsky. I certainly appreciate your help. But I am concerned
about how the two of you have characterized the work of both Brigitte Muehlegger
and K. Paul Johnson.  

You may not agree with their conclusions concerning various alleged activities
of Madame Blavatsky. I may share some of your concerns and views BUT why
must we paint either one of them as bad people?

I've corresponded with both Brigitte and Paul and at no point have I had
any reason to conclude or even think that they are "bad" people or that
they are somehow "insincere". I assume that they are both sincere seekers
of truth. Why ascribe to either of them less than good motives? 

If either of you truly disagree with what they say, and feel that they have
distorted the record concerning Madame Blavatsky, please show the illogic,
irrationality, etc. of their STATEMENTS about HPB rather than suggest nefarious
motives on their part.

Also Dallas I think it is really unfair to make the following statement
as you recently did:

"... I WISH TO PROTEST again in the matter of K. Paul Johnson's book: 'THE
MASTERS REVEALED' (1944). This book has been written for sensational purposes
and for profit. As far as I have been able to determine it has not[h]ing
of value in it."

However much I may have disagreed with Paul Johnson about his thesis on
the Theosophical Mahatmas, I have never got even the faintest glimmer or
suggestion that he wrote the book for "sensational purposes and for profit."
It would appear that I have made more money off THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME
BLAVATSKY (1991) than what Paul did on THE MASTERS REVEALED. Does that
therefore cast me in a bad light, too? :)

I think Paul has had a genuine interest and desire to unravel the "mystery"
surrounding HPB's Masters. Having said that, I certainly don't accept many
of his conclusions and I don't always understand his reasoning for those
conclusions.  

Dallas and Frank, if you see the fallacies in what Brigitte and Paul have
written about HPB, please present your facts and your reasoning and refute
their ideas and conclusions. This will be the constructive route and will
possibly help all interested readers gain a better undertstanding of the
issues involved.

In a rush.

Daniel Caldwell



---------------------------------------
Daniel H. Caldwell
info@blavatskyarchives.com
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
---------------------------------------
http://blavatskyarchives.com
http://blavatskyarchives.com/esotericworld.htm
http://esotericworld.net
http://blavatsky.cc
http://theosophyonthe.net

You can always access our main site by
simply typing into the URL address
bar the following 6 characters:

hpb.cc
---------------------------------------