[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

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

Jan 11, 2001 05:53 AM
by dalval14

Thursday, January 11, 2001

Dear Daniel:

Thanks for your views and counsel. They are indeed, as always,

It is not my intention to paint anyone as either "good" or "bad."
As to motives, I think each of us has to deal with our won and we
need not seek to ferret out others, as we are sure to be quite
wrong in such unverifiable estimates. In any case great KARMA
will eventually take care of all things, and if we err (including
myself, or are ungenerous) then we will have to be corrected.

I protested the unsupported statements made and the fact that
neither H.P.B. nor the MASTERS OF WISDOM were able to speak or
write a defence. I feel that it is my duty to draw attention to
this. A fair historian shows all facets of his findings. He
does not attack the "dead," or those who are "unable to respond."
At least not in my esteem is this warrantable.

H.P.B. and the Masters are unable at this time to respond to the
statements made. So someone ought to cal a halt for re-study.
Hence: My PROTEST.

Let the facts (WHEN TABLED FOR ALL TO SEE) be allowed to speak
for themselves. Most of the readership are unable to personally
check the evidence, so what is left for them to do? Trust the
writer. But no writer is ever totally right, and a good one
(writer) lets his readership know when he is guessing and when he
is sure, by giving them the opportunity to check what he sets

Let any counter facts be equally exposed so that variances can be
made obvious.

I have no objection to that. That is what I mean by "Equal
Time." { or a "level field."}

Please also see the attached sent this morning:

Best wishes,




Wednesday, January 10, 2001

Dear Maureen, and others who have inquired into my PROTEST.

Kindly let me say I am no one's enemy. I do not care for the

But I believe it is only fair to all of us and to those whom I
consider have been attacked, to FIND and lay the FACTS out for
all to see, and thus enable them to make their own judgments
thereon. Half a proposition, unless fully supported , is what I
object to. I propose that we focus on what is whole, shows both
sides and is available and valuable to all.

I ask simply that one-sided attacks on Personages who are now
unable to respond , be refrained from.

Instead of fault-seeking and fault-finding why not spend energy
on verification of what has been offered: THEOSOPHY ? Is
Theosophy wrong in concept, in motive, in doctrine and in

One-sided attacks to which it may be presumed no answer can be
made by the party/parties attacked, is hardly fair in any era I
can think of.

Let the actual balance of pros and cons be offered. What strikes
me as strange is the search and the publication of unproven
gossip about personalities, and not the verification of a
Philosophy. It seems to me to be a deliberate diverting of
study, investigation and opinion away from a study of ongoing
value (Theosophy) to a consideration of the nature of the
character of one or several, who in the period 1875-1891, worked
to see that it became public -- and open for individuals to
study. I wonder why that should be so? Is the philosophy of
Theosophy right or wrong? Should we continue to work with it or
disprove it? What has OUR own study so far revealed?

This enables readers to start with a more complete picture. I
have tried to point to this deficiency. Mr. Daniel Caldwell
has already gone thoroughly into the matter and published
excellent and comprehensive reviews of it. The book: "THE
THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT: 1875-1950" gives an even broader base. I
can only say that I have verified as many of the facts, and
documents, as have so far come to my attention -- and that is
most of them so far advanced. I write and speak from that point
of view. I have also given my sources, so all who are interested
can also verify them.

Of Mr. Johnson, I asked (and ask) for facts. From my own
research he appears to have none that are have much, if any,
validity. I have told him this long ago after his book was first
published, in 1994. [ In my recent protest I made an error
saying it was published in "1944."]

All I say is that with a very intimate knowledge of India and its
people; and having the advantage of a span of some 35+ years of
actual residence in India; and also, and having a very deep and
respectful interest in THEOSOPHY; and an equally deep respect
for HPB and the MASTERS OF WISDOM, I have not found Mr. Johnson's
writings relevant, or congruent with facts known in the Punjab
and elsewhere in the official archives or in other archives
publicly available. However, since I might also be wrong in my
surmises, when his book was published (and I read it), I asked
him to advance them (his facts), and I am still waiting for a
satisfactory answer that would serve to reconcile the differences
I have observed in his writings..

There is no reason why you (or anyone else so deeply interested),
not also go to India and trace down what is claimed by him. View
the documents in the British Museum, and in India which relate to
this subject. Probe the historical literature in Theosophical
Society archives, and elsewhere, which are relevant to these
matters. The papers relative to the matter of Theosophy
(1880-1891), and relating to H.P.B. and Col. Olcott's residence
and work in India, Europe and England are in the official
Government archives of those days, and can be viewed.

I have lived in India for over 35 years. I was educated there
and have many friends there. I have carefully looked into
matters such as these (at first hand) over a long period, since I
was a youth. I recognize that my "say-so" is no more valid than
Mr. Johnson's (to a third party) and, unless others,
independently research the matter he has advanced, it remains
unsettled and a matter of opinions which flit in and out, and are
themselves quite unsubstantial. Third party opinions are and
will remain only that: opinions -- until some additional
research and evidence is uncovered and made public.

I do object most strenuously on moral grounds, to the dragging of
the names and reputations of the MASTERS and H.P.B. in the mud of
public and uninformed sensationalism. Therefore I considered it
my duty to offer the PROTEST I make and made. Let me be clear:
It is on behalf of those individuals who either cannot or will
not defend themselves publicly.

As for THEOSOPHY, one need only study it as a whole, completely
and impartially, to verify its value.

As I see it, it is a history of our Earth and its evolution, not
produced as a speculation or an hypothesis, but it is derived
from the direct OBSERVATION of those who have participated in all
aspects of that research and development -- ourselves as immortal
Intelligences -- if we accept the possibility of personal
IMMORTALITY, and of the general and progressive evolution of all
beings living in NATURE (the Universe).

The consideration of the philosophical and logical basis for the
Theosophical philosophy is germane to my PROTEST. The totality
of all evolution -- every being -- an immortal intelligence, ever
growing in self-consciousness, living under the universal and
impartial LAW of KARMA in many FORMS on Earth (reincarnation),
and the UNIFYING CAUSE of final and individual PERFECTIBILITY in
WISDOM coupled with the continuous practice of BROTHERHOOD, are
the qualifying distinctions of the practice of Theosophy. [ see
KEY TO THEOSOPHY p. 231 Original Edition ].

"Nature" (our Earth as a part of the UNIVERSAL TOTALITY)
contains all, and is the on-going field of investigation and
research of every department of modern Science, philosophy,
religion and psychology. Theosophy (as I study it) has so far
shown itself to be their base. It is eclectic and unites them
all into one.

A PROTEST is not an attack, but is a request for independent
investigation. It says that there are different views and
opinions. It asks for "equal time," and, or the producing of
evidence that supports an allegation. Let the individual(s) who
advance such, provide it. I have provided a public source for
the documentary base that is available to all of us.

I do draw attention to the living proofs enshrined in THEOSOPHY.
Those who have studied them are able to determine the validity
(or otherwise) of those doctrines and statements.

It is clear that I am a protagonist for THEOSOPHY and show a very
deep respect for THOSE who brought it to us to read, study and
apply (if we are convinced it is useful and valid). The
important thing is that THEOSOPHY and its doctrines ought to be
looked into most carefully with a view to finding out if there is
any truth there. Opinions which do not embody at least a modicum
of research will of course be vapory.

I hope this is of some value in clearing the air and my personal
motives in protesting.

Best wishes,

Dallas TenBroeck



>From the above you will see that I accuse no one, but only ask
for facts and state them as I am familiar with them. Once the
information asked for is given, and I have given my share, it
remains for those who do the "attacking" to come forward and
demonstrate theirs.

It would add considerably to their credibility if they will
impartially, and simultaneously present their own research into
any counter or differing views, made in historical material that
they have no doubt researched -- as I have. In other words are
they giving "equal time" to those about whom they are now
writing? I mean H.P.B. and the MASTERS ?

I think that takes care of any imputation of "motives." I am not
a muckraker, nor spend much time in argument when principles and
facts are involved. Just show both sides of the coin please.


Subject: Re: FW: NEW EVIDENCE Paul Johnson' Poor Scholarship

Dear Mr. Johnson--

The so-called scholarship you think so highly of is full of
and undocumented assertions in almost every sentence. If you
wish I will
send you the first three pages of the website and point out the
lack of
documentation. Look at Henderson's letter -- do you think that
reliable evidence to be believed in any courtroom???!!
When Dallas says
there's "nothing of value" in it he is obviously comparing it to
well-documented material such as:
by Sylvia Cranston. Go to the rear of the book and look at the
then compare it to the scholarship you think so highly of.

Once again, as a serious student of H.P. Blavatsky, I invite you
to read
Daniel Caldwell's: K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS. Or his
answer to
your objections: "Methinks Johnson Shot himself in the Foot."
quite the exact title but it is easy to find:
work continues to be a prize example of

1. Misusing evidence

2. Ignoring evidence that disproves your thesis

3. Imagining what "might have happened" when there is a gaping
hole in
the process of building a case for your FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS

Your letter to DTB is a prize example in itself.

Where are the facts to support your CLAIMS!!! I repeat WHERE ARE
If you have them, state them. They are certainly not brought
forward in
this most recent letter!

If you had written your several books for the ENQUIRER magazine I
wouldn't say a word; or if you were an ex-member of Senator Joe
McCarthy's staff I would have little to say---but to POSE as a
and serious researcher!! --- COME ON!! GIVE US A BREAK!!

best regards,

Jerome Wheeler




-----Original Message-----
From: Blavatsky Archives []
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:12 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Dallas Tenbroeck and Frank Reitemeyer on the material by
Brigitte Muehlegger and K. Paul Johnson

Dallas Tenbroeck and Frank Reitemeyer on the material by Brigitte
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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

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

You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
List URL -
To unsubscribe send a blank email to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application