Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00050)

Subject: Steve Stubbs' Response to Paul Johnson
Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:00:17 -0700 

Paul:

Many thanks for your remarks. My comments below.

Paul: "There is a real problem with the way
Theosophists approach this question, making it
virtually impossible for any constructive dialogue
with nonTheosophists (more specifically
Blavatskybelievers) to occur. It has to do
with unquestioned and unstated assumptions about
sources and reliability."

I am confused by this statement. Please enlighten me,
O Blavatsky-believer. I hope my statements below
strike you as constructive.

Please also copy me if you respond, since I am not a
member of the "Universal Seekers" list.

I must say, I have always had difficulty with radical
rejectionist positions regarding "sources and
reliability" because that leaves us totally adrift,
free to construct whatever wild hypothesis we wish. 
Methodologically, it appears to me, sources should be
considered an anchor, and be respected unless one is
forced by the evidence to do otherwise. This is a
problem I have with Burton Mack's books, even though
he is a brilliant scholar.

I might also say that the fact that I am unable to
stand in your Amen corner does not mean I did not
think your book was brilliant. I did, and have said
so.

One thing that confuses me is your phrase
"nonTheosophists (more specifically
Blavatskybelievers)." That confused me
greatly. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it confuses me
still. Does is make sense for "Blavatsky-believers"
to be at the same time "non-Theosophists"?

Something else that confuses me is that you
characterize "KH" as "a source whose very existence is
in doubt" and yet you have written an ingenious book
(which I enjoyed reading - thank you!) to unmask his
secret identity. As a philosophy student that strikes
me as similar to Berkeley claiming in effect that the
world does not exist and writing a book to prove it
which of course would have to be read by the very
world the existence of which he seems to have denied a
priori. Or Kant seemingly questioning the existence
of time, and yet proclaiming that he cannot explain
the Transcendental Contents of the Understanding for
lack of time. Pardon me, but we philosophy students
get a chuckle out of that sort of thing.

If you wanted to argue that The Secret Doctrine is
"composites constructed of many pieces" I would agree
wholeheartedly and enthusiastically. The book says so
on the title page (i.e., that it is a synthesis) and
in the text. Moreover, internal evidence makes it
clear that this is the case. This is a point which
was vehemently contested by Theosophical
Fundamentalists when I made the mistake of innocently
pointing it out a year or so ago. However, having
carefully studied Isis and the SD I am persuaded that
Blavatsky did in fact have at least one teacher. The
reasons are very complicated, but here again it is
based on internal evidence. There is also good
historical reason to believe she was a member of an
Indian fraternity of some sort which claimed
philosophers and yogis as members, although I think
some of the ideas that have been promulgated by
Theosophical Fundamentalists about this organization
are much too wild to be tenable. If she had teachers
and was a member of a fraternity of yogis (of which
there were a multitude in India) there is no reason I
can see to doubt that her teachers were who she said
they were - suitably disguised, of course.

Paul: "[Nisi Kanta Chattopadhyana] was quite a young
man at
the time [i.e., 1875] and could not very plausibly be
the subject of any of HPB's reminiscences about
earlier acquaintance with him."

I suspect you are confusing "KH" with "Morya" here. 
Blavatsky claims to have met KH late in the drama, so
there logically could have been no "reminiscences
about earlier acquaintance with him." Not that went
back to 1875, anyway. If I am wrong or
misinterpreting something, please support your
statement with quotations so we can properly judge
your argument.

Paul: "Why not consider the possibility that this
*single reference to Fechner* was drawn by HPB from
this *particular prototype* and that bits and pieces
of 'Koot Hoomi' came from many other sources?"

Are you positing that HPB wished to fraudulently
identify "KH" as NKC, knowing that Sinnett could
easily contact NKC and validate or invalidate the
reference? NKC wrote for Theosophical periodicals. 
He was hardly inaccesible.

Paul: "I suspect that Alexis Dolgorouki has beat Steve
to the punch, and I have publicly acknowleded [sic]
the plausibility of his argument."

I would like to read what he has said. Can you
provide a reference, please.

Anyone is free to beat me to the punch on anything,
and I am delighted when it occurs.

Paul: "[Alexis] makes the unfounded (except on faith)
assumption that there is one single 'real Morya' and
'real Koot Hoomi' and that these Masters were two
particular individuals and none others."

For me this is an operating hypothesis, and not an
"unfounded (except on faith) assumption." One cannot
operate without hypotheses. That said, which
hypothesis should we choose? The law of parsimony,
otherwise known as Ockham's Razor, or the law of
economy of hypothesis, mandates that we must choose
the simplest explanation which fits the observed
facts. The hypothesis that there were two men is a
simpler one than the hypothesis that there were a
plethora of them. It seems reasonable to me to begin
by accepting the statement that KH and Morya were real
men and to only reject that when it becomes untenable.
The fact that Nisi Kanta Chattopadhyana was a real
man seems to strengthen and not weaken this
hypothesis. Daniel has argued that NKC could not have
been KH, and has presented valuable evidence, but I am
not yet persuaded. Perhaps he will bring more
evidence before the bar and I will be forced to
conclude that he is right. I am open minded, but I
require to be forced. Force me, force me.

Your hypothesis that the mahatmas were all Sikhs is an
operating hypothesis. I would be most willing to
accept that were it not for the fact that internal
evidence in the SD and elsewhere seems to weigh
against it. Unlike the Fundamentalists, I have no
negative emotional reaction to that hypothesis
whatever. In fact, I have no emotional reaction of
any kind to it, and reject it only on what appear to
me to be logical grounds.

Lengthy books have been written to prove that Jesus
Christ never existed, but in the absence of compelling
argument to support that hypothesis, it seems more
reasonable to accept the historical existence of an
attested personage. One could construct an argument
that the Roman emperor Tiberius never existed. (There
are some problems with the evidence.) But that he did
not exist is a less reasonable hypothesis in my
judgement than that he did.

So it seems to me, anyway. Feel free to disagree.

Incidentally, the question of whether KH and Morya did
or did not exist, and who they were if they did exist,
is an historical, and not an exclusively Theosophical,
question. Ergo, I submit that a reasoned argument
must be evaluated on its own merits, without regard
for whether one is or is not, or has been, or ever
will be, a Theosophist.

Paul: "No religion higher than truth."

Very good. You are right on. So where is the
cat-and-mouse? And which of the two are you?

Paul: "This is a dismissive reference to my
identification of Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Kashmir as
the primary prototype for 'Morya.'"

The truth is, I was not even thinking of your book
when I wrote this. It has been some time since I read
it, and I did not recall your "identification of
Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Kashmir as the primary
prototype for 'Morya.'" In my mind I was discussing
this with Daniel Caldwell, who was then posting it to
other lists. I was aware that others might follow the
discussion, but my thouhts and remarks were directed
to Daniel. I was unaware that you would enter the
discussion.

But I am pleased that you did.

I hope that was "constructive."

Sat Nam,

Steve
 


---------------------------------------
Daniel H. Caldwell
info@blavatskyarchives.com
---------------------------------------
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com
Publishes rare & hard-to-find source 
documents on Madame H.P. Blavatsky.
---------------------------------------
SELECTED THEOSOPHICAL BOOKS FOR SALE
http://blavatsky.cc
---------------------------------------
ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY
http://blavatskyarchives.com/esotericworld.htm
This new book contains a unique collection of 
rare reminiscences of H.P. Blavatsky's life.
---------------------------------------
Theosophyonthe.NET
http://theosophyonthe.net
Easy Net Access to the Classics of Theosophy
---------------------------------------
You can always access our main site 
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES by simply typing 
into the URL address bar the following 
6 characters: hpb.cc