Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00395)

Hi Paul, and all of you,

Thank you for answering Paul.
I have made my comments in the below using - stars - *.
I hope the below is readable.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World A hate list? and what to do about it


> --- In theos-talk@y..., "Morten Sufilight" <teosophy@m...> wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > This email is a view - and to Paul I will say - I do care Paul - 
> and that is also why I answer your email here in the below.
> 
> Hi Morten,
> 
> Glad that you care about improving communication. Herewith my 
> attempt to do the same:

> 1.***Allright good.***
> > 
> > 1. First to correct a mis-understanding: My reflections where to 
> the list - and NOT to Bart as it is highlighted in the below email 
> from Paul. Try reading my email, and you will see that. OK ?
> 
> You stated your agreement with Peter, in reference to his agreement 
> with Bart. I did read your email and I know you were addressing the 
> list.

2.***OK***
> > 
> > 2. I understand, your email.
> >  
> > You seem to asume, that I have a certain opinion in my previous 
> posting, which you answer in the below.  
> > 
> > But Paul, - try reading your own answer in the below, and then you 
> will see, that your own view are in conflict with it self.
> 
> Perhaps it doesn't improve communication to make such high handed 
> pronouncements without any real explanation.

3.***I do that - I do explain - but some won't see, that I am right.***
> 
> > You defend academic analyzing - without heart,
> 
> Certainly not. I defend the people you are attacking when you say 
> that, and I don't agree with the charge at all. Academic analysis 
> isn't ipso facto heartless.
> snip
>  
4.***Can you prove that ? I think the quite opposite is the truth here ! (See the later remarks). 
And please I am not attacking anyone, if anyone thinks so - please let me know - I just want to help - us all. I just state my - views - anyone are free to do that. 
And please let us keep - the Latin - out on this Theosophical list- so others can follow in on the emails - allright ??
(Or else - even better - please - translate this: 'ipso facto ')***
> > 
> > Now 'clear awareness of history' - (and that is 'clear') can only 
> come through - reading the Akasha as HPB did. 
> 
> That's the ultimate Theosophical fundamentalist argument. No amount 
> of historical work done by historians using traditional methods can 
> ever contradict the pronouncements of those who claim to read the 
> Akashic record. How is that different from someone who says that 
> clear awareness of history can only come through interpreting the 
> Bible as so-and-so did.

5.***(This is a lengthy answer.) 
But, this remark of mine above yours, was also the view Blavatsky had.
 
Try this:
On:>>No amount 
> of historical work done by historians using traditional methods can 
> ever contradict the pronouncements of those who claim to read the 
> Akashic record. How is that different from someone who says that 
> clear awareness of history can only come through interpreting the 
> Bible as so-and-so did.<< (I take this as a question to be answered.)

Facts and Historical facts:
Facts are not, what they are assumed to be - and that goes for historical facts too. Facts are only relatively true.
Those who are interested in ultimate truth cannot regard material reality as more than transitory.
((The last word 'transitory' seems important here. The ultimate truth is not transitory - It really CARES !))*** 
***On :>>ultimate Theosophical fundamentalist argument<<. 
Propaganda:
All propaganda, religious or secular, is generally built on a narrow factual base. This is one reason why all propagandists resist the broadening of contexts as much as they do any direct opposition to their activities.
It may only be a coincidence that it was the wife of another Bishop who, informed of Darwin's theory, said, 'Let us pray that it is untrue. Or, if true, that it is not believed.'***
***On :>>ultimate Theosophical fundamentalist argument<<. The difference between theosophist and a lot of others are that theosophist are using wisdom- and not - only - academic analyzing - wheater historical or not. Those who rejects - wisdom - comes very very often to the above conclusion of yours. So it is a question about rejecting wisdom or exploring it - i.e. exploring Atma-Vidya etc. So please Theosophists are not fundamentalists - but those who themselves are - tend to call us that. So I really disagree with you here.***


> 
> Historians don't try to dictate to Theosophists how to theosophize; 
> why should Theosophists try to dictate to historians how to research 
> and write about history?

6.***I don't seek to dictate anything - I just encourage some of us from time to time to rethink their views - and review their conscience. If I have done different - please tell my so !! Why reject wisdom - and compassion ?***
> 
> > HPB is doing a lot of bashing on the historical scholars of her 
> time in the book The Secret Doctrine. Now you come and say to me, 
> that what HPB did was wrong ?? Is this what I have to understand ??
> 
> Don't know what you're getting at here. You'd have to be specific 
> about who was being bashed and on what basis, and then I could judge 
> whether she was right or wrong. She made no sweeping condemnations 
> of academic historians in general as you make or imply.

7.***So you don't know what I am getting at ?? I hold that to be at least -a small lie !
I wonder in general - does it feel good to lie ? (You could consider my previous email to you - I hold this to be true.)***
> 
> > Today - it seems, that academic non-spiritual/non-theosophical 
> historical scholars, want to gain territory again - am I right ?
> 
> ?? What do you mean, gain territory?
> How can you refer to academic historical scholars as "non-spiritual" 
> simply because they try to avoid imposing their religious beliefs on 
> the matter they study?

8.***On:>>?? What do you mean, gain territory?<<
I think it is obvoius - that it goes for those on this list Theos-talk - who is bashing Blavatsky - for being a fake and false teacher on Theosophy - i.e. wisdom of God - the Gods - the wisdom of all ages past. -- If you are not one of them - then everything is allright, and you will have my humble apology. And that goes for other people as well.***
> 
> > And Theosophy - the wisdom of all ages past - has to pay - someone 
> can make a living ? Am I right? Or wrong?
> 
> What are you trying to say? You're pretty clearly wrong, very wrong, 
> if you are trying to suggest that I or anyone who has written books 
> about Theosophical history has made a living therefrom. It's a labor 
> of love. Also you are very wrong to say that non-Theosophists who 
> study HPB and come up with independent appraisals are somehow making 
> Theosophy pay something. Who are you accusing, and what are you 
> accusing them of exactly?

9.***Sorry - a word is missing - this is the right sentence, with 'so':
>>And Theosophy - the wisdom of all ages past - has to pay - so someone 
> can make a living ? Am I right? Or wrong?<< (All right?)
I think you should answer these questions by putting them to youself. If I am wrong then allright - if I am right well allright, and that is that. As for your remark >>It's a labor 
> of love.<< - I can hardly agree (for reasons of wisdom), but prove I can't - so your own (and of course also others on this list) conscience will have to tell you if I am wrong.***
> > 
> > As much as I do admire your books - Paul - for highlighting the 
> issue of theosophy of the Middle East -- I do reject anyone thinking -
> that 'clear awareness of history' comes from academic analyzing - 
> without using theosophical (i.e. wisdom) teachings. That must be fake.
> 
> Baha'is would say the same about clear awareness of their history 
> without using Baha'i teachings; every other dogmatic fundamentalist 
> would say you can't understand history unless you interpret it in 
> terms of their own particular belief system.

10.***Yes - but do they use - spiritual wisdom - or do they reject it ? - Look here again:
The difference between theosophist and a lot of others is that theosophist are using spiritual wisdom - and not - only - academic analyzing - wheater historical or not. Those who rejects - true spiritual wisdom - comes to theabove conclusion of yours. So it is a question about rejecting true spiritual wisdom or exploring it - i.e. exploring Atma-Vidya etc. So please Theosophists are not fundamentalists - but those who themselves are tend to callus that. So stop using the word 'fundamentalist' or 'fundamentalism' aboutreal true theosophy and real true theosophuists. So I really disagree withyou here. ***
> > 
> > Some of us knows about wisdom. And some don't.
> 
> And some of us presume to determine who does and who doesn't, and 
> publicly pronounce others' widsom inferior to their own.

11.***Well - yes. Interesting. What is the idea with that remark ?***
> 
> snip 
> > 4. To me Brigitte lately very often has been not constructive - 
> but destructive by using bad words - and between the lines accusing 
> Theosophy for being evil-based. But that is just my view.
> 
> To argue that it is not as purely benevolent and high-minded as 
> Theosophists like to imagine is not to argue that it is evil-based.  
> But let Brigitte speak for herself on this issue.

12.***I can't agree with you here. I could suggest you to reread the latestemails on the list coming from - for instance - Brigitte M. and the answers to her - then I think your conscience will tell you different. But it could take some time - for some to do that. -- But, I agree, let Brigitte M. speak for herself, that must be the best. (This is - not - to attack you Brigitte M., that you are being mentioned in this email.)***
> 
> I don't think Theosophy (meaning modern Blavatskianism) is evil-
> based. My books tend to apologia for HPB, presenting her as 
> primarily good in intentions and motivations.  

13.***Evil-based accusations directly or indirectly or not - some on this list has done a pretty good job on that - 'evil-bashing' - in the latest months of emails. I hold your books to be motivated by - a wish to find the truth. But, as almost said before, the basis of more than one of your books -are, according to my humble view, not going very deeply into the - word 'wisdom' - and what it implies for Theosophy - and the organizations around Theosophy and the people around Theosophy. But let us keep your books out of this. I find them to be a contribution to materialistic science - and some people could be interested in learning - real true Theosophy - i.e. wisdom - wisdom of God or the Gods - while reading them.> ***

> > (To Brigitte: I am so sorry Brigitte. - I think some are in love 
> with you - me too - I think it is sad, that you feel it necessary to 
> attack theosophy so much - it makes me sad, when people doesn't act 
> sweet and good).
> 
> Perhaps it would help you to understand the dynamic if you take into 
> account the years of Theosophists attacking those who question their 
> history. There's an exasperation factor here, and having dealt with 
> Daniel myself I know just how exasperating he can be.

14.***Yes - perhaps. People develop - and become more and more interested in wisdom.***
> > 
> snip
> > 
> > I tend to assume you need to sort of (what some calls) - 
> scientifically prove - everything you come across - with lenghty 
> quotes etc - is that true ??
> > 
> Not at all. Most of the important things in life don't lend 
> themselves to such an approach.  

15.***Then it is a surprise to me, why you are so much against Blavatskys teachings on Theosophy - are at least avoid dealing more with them - i.e. 'wisdom' etc ?***
> 
> snip
> 
> > Why are you then, as I see it, agreeing on, that it is allright 
> bashing Blavatsky ??
> > 
> I'm not. I'm arguing that any questioning of Theosophical dogma 
> about HPB is regarded as "bashing"-- even when it's done by people 
> who evidently admire her and feel fondness for her, like Steve. It's 
> Theosophists' huge loss to regard any questioning of their dogmas as 
> a personal attack on their Messenger, and to react with personal 
> hostility.

16.*** There is those who, as you put it, is 'questioning' theosophy. But there are those who vigourously attacks theosophy - and compares it with Nazism and Hitler etc.
So 'bashing' most have more than one meaning - am I right ?***

> > 
> > 9. To say : Do good. Be good. Write good words. See good. - Is it 
> wrong to say that ?
> > Am I interferring with others thoughts? What do you want Paul?
> 
> I want you and others to stop being enemies of intellectual freedom, 
> to stop denouncing people for trying to have a discussion of HPB 
> involving elements that Theosophists have traditionally avoided. To 
> stop using "spiritual" put-downs that basically say "I'm better, more 
> spiritual, wiser than you, and from my heights of wisdom I can see 
> that you belong to category X, which I disdain for such-and-such 
> reason." You do that, clearly and consistently, whether or not you 
> are aware of it.

17.***Who is the enemy of wisdom? Is that you? I am not against - intellecutal freedom - if you read my previous email you - will see that. But I defend, that wisdom is real - and that it is stupid to reject wisdom and cosmicconsciousnes - and insted worship materialism - with all its evils. I encourage everyone to - stop being materialistic. ***
> 
> > Why are you as it seems - hunting me - in the below?
> 
> Because you snipped all the references to other people!

18.***You quoted me, from that email I made - didn't you. So why? 
You even here - admit, that you hunt me - well here is the real face of Paul K. Johnson !What do you on the list think about that ?***
> 
> Can you explain your very categorical staement further? (pollution?)
> > 
> 
> Complaining about the atmosphere on the list and its ugliness does 
> not seem very sincere, when contained in messages that add to the 
> ugliness of the atmosphere.

19.***(In the aboe 'staement should be 'statement'.) I have not complainedabout the 'atmosphere' on this list - somone else did that. Please be morespecific.
I seek to highlight - that wisdom should be preffered on this list - instedof ugly words - and evil remarks. Do good. See good. Be good. Never hurt -always help. If you can't help, then at least seek to avoid hurting.***
> 
> Hoping that helps,

20.***Well, it did I am sure - but who was helped?

Did this help - anyone? 
Hi-ho - Hi-ho -- 'Christmas' etc.***
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>