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

"the sources of Blavatsky wheren't 'Masters' but clearly 'books'"

Nov 26, 2001 08:04 AM
by danielhcaldwell

Brigitte wrote:

> Note that Paul Johnson who Daniel now quotes, mentioned about 
> Daniel that in the almost nign years of his cumbersome dealings 
> Daniel , Daniel never answerred any questions. 

As far as I know, I have certainly answered many questions that Paul 
Johnson had. He has also answered many of my questions. It is true 
that Johnson has written what Brigitte said above but as far as I can 
tell this was just Paul's way of distracting from the specific topics 
I was trying to discuss with him.

What this particular point has to do with the specific issues now 
being discussed in my posts with Brigitte, I have no idea. 

Again I would surmise this is Brigitte's way of distracting from any 
of the specific issues. Brigitte distracted by calling Brendan 
French a liar and cheat instead of answering the specific statements 
of Dr. French. She distracted from the specific issues brought up by 
Dr. Tillett by writing that Dr. Tillett was a priest in some cult.

Brigitte wrote:

> This was just recently as a matter of fact around the time that 
> Daniel was trown by Katinka from the Universal Seekers mailingl > 

Yes, I was thrown off the List by Katinka without any explanation 
from her of why it was done. LATER I learned that one of my offenses 
was my writing about some of the misstatements about HPB's Masters 
brought up by Paul and Brigitte. Katinka thought I was precluded 
[based on what Paul Johnson had written and Katinka accepted] from 
ever talking about that particular subject on Universal Seekers. 
There's more to it but that's the gist. As far as I'm concerned 
Katinka is a censor of opinions and I finally told Katinka I did not 
want to come back to a list where she was censoring what one could 
post. I hope theos-talk will not be censored in that unfair and 
untheosophical way.

Brigitte wrote:

> The point in the links below wich I suggested Daniel comments to if 
> it isnt true, clearly show that the sources of Blavatsky 
> wheren't "Masters" but clearly "books". And that almost all the 
> authors I quote in my mail below are somehow listed as sources in 
>the links for the S.D. and other works of Blavatsky.

Thanks Brigitte for a substantial comment here. Let me make a few 
comments myself in reply. Take ISIS UNVEILED, for example. Please 
thumb through the pages in these two volumes and look especially at 
the footnotes. Blavatsky herself does NOT hide the fact that she is 
quoting from many books. Almost every page in ISIS UNVEILED is laced 
with quotes and footnotes from various authors. This is obvious to 
any reader. 

In fact many readers have complained that all this quoting and citing 
by Blavatsky is almost overwhelming. 

But to conclude that BECAUSE Blavatsky quotes from and refers in her 
books to hundreds of authors --- that this "clearly shows that the 
sources of Blavatsky weren't 'Masters'" makes no sense whatever.

Steve and Jerry (if you two are reading this) does this type of 
reasoning make any sense to the two of you?

Paul Johnson even makes statements in his three books that 
Blavatsky's teachings and writings were ALSO influenced by her 
contacts with various esotericists and "adepts". Keep in mind that 
these are esotericists and adepts NOT quoted in HPB's writings. If 
it is possible that these individuals gave HPB ideas and even 
teachings then why is it so unthinkable that "M" and "KH" or "Ooton 
Liatto" might have given her ideas, insights, understandings? Maybe 
the two "real adepts" (mentioned by Johnson) that came to see Olcott 
and Blavatsky in 1876 gave ideas and insights that HPB then 
incorporated into ISIS UNVEILED.

> Also Paul johnson never claimed that Ranbir Singh, Thakur Singh or 
> any of the other composite characters that Johnson describes ever 
> helped writing the Secret Doctrine. 

But Johnson does suggest several places in his books that, for 
example, Thakur Singh "helped writing" the Mahatma Letters. In other 
words, that Thakur Singh was involved in some way with the production 
of the Mahatma Letters. These Mahatma Letters contain various 
occult, esoteric and theosophical teachings. If Johnson is seriously 
contending that Thakur Singh was therefore involved with the letters, 
then one might reasonably conclude that some of these teachings might 
have come from him. If Paul Johnson can suggest such connections, 
then why can't other persons also suggest similar connections between 
HPB's writings and, for example, M and KH and Ooton Liatto?

Daniel H. Caldwell

[Back to Top]

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