Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00199)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Steve Stubbs" <stevestubbs@y...> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> > I find a certain kind of ideological 
> > self-confidence fascinating. It abounds on this list.
> 
> That may be a by product of serious study. You have strong 
feelings 
> about your conviction that Blavatsky was a liar and fraud and that 
> the masters were all myths. 

I have extremely strong feelings about the preposterous accusation 
that I have ever believed or asserted any such thing. Which is 
presumably why you keep pulling my chain with that line, year in and 
year out? Now the strong feeling is a rush of outrage, followed by a 
rush of perplexity, "why the hell does he keep saying this?" 
Providing 32 detailed biographical essays of real spiritual/occult 
mentors would seem a truly bizarre way to argue that "the masters 
were all myths."

One more time:
1. Sometimes a liar, sometimes a truth teller.
2. Sometimes a fraud, sometimes sincere.
3. The Masters were, by definition, if you mean the real people, not 
myths.
4. "The Masters" as specific, named characters in Theosophical 
literature, were mythologizations of real people, not "all myths."

Why keep making me repeat this? To make me feel like a total and 
absolute failure as a writer, since the obvious thesis of the books 
repeated from the first to the last page simply *does not register*?

That should be respected, since it 
> obviously comes from a good deal of serious study of primary 
> sources. One distinction I would make is that I have learned a lot 
> from the people who have posted and have been forced to re-examine 
a lot of old assumptions. 

Please reexamine your reading of my books because your summary above 
sounds like that of any Theosophical fundamentalist who hasn't and 
won't read a single page because they already "know" they are attacks 
on HPB and Theosophy. AARGH!

I assume some others have as well. But I 
> have not noticed the same learning process evident in many other 
> members.

Sometimes it's invisible.

??