Re: Steve Stubbs on the Hodgson Report
Feb 06, 2003 07:04 PM
by Steve Stubbs " <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell
<inquire@b...>" <inquire@b...> wrote:
> I really wonder what material Steve has or has not read and studied
> on the Hodgson Report.
I cannot spare the time to get into a long war about Hodgson.
Suffice it to say that the way Theosophists deal with his Report does
not satisfy me, but that their premise (i.e., that it is badly
flawed) is, in my judgement correct. One Theosophist I read said he
was "hopping mad" that Hodgson did not share his fundamentalist views
about Blavatsky and the mahatmas. Why he thought his mental state
would be of any interest to anyone except him, or why he thought it
would have any critical value in evaluating the Report escapes me.
If that satisfies some people, then those writers have not written in
vain. I prefer a different approach. I don't see how fist pounding
and angry rhetoric and irrelevant distraction and misdirection
techniques can lead to any real sense of satisfaction that one has
found the truth, but maybe that is just me.
K. Paul Johnson had been good enough to inform me that he discussed
the Report briefly in his book INITIATES OF THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS. I
have seen and read TMR, but not INITIATES, so was not aware of this
and cannot comment on it. He says people can see excerpts of the
book having to do with Hodgson on the amazon.com web site if they
want to know what he thinks about the Report.
If Djual Khul was known to the Theosophists in his worldly identity
without them knowing that person was secretly Djual Khul, then it is
quite likely that DK (Djual Khul) was DK (Damodar K. Mavalankar.) I
suspect that all the mahatmas and chelas were known to the
Theosophists in their worldly personas without anyone except the
innermost circle knowing that those folks were also the mahatmas.
There are a number of minor coincidences which suggest the identity
of DK and DK, and one major one, namely, that Damodar was the only
Theosophist of any significance who would have been nicknamed "the
Disinherited." Unfortunately, the identification cannot be made
conclusively, because on occasion Olcott and others spoke of the two
as different persons. This may mean what it appears to mean, or it
may be that they were putting out red herrings to keep people from
making the obvious association, just as they did with KH and Morya.
After all these years it is highly unlikely we will ever know for
sure. Anyway,m the Report contains an interesting account of jpw
Damodar came to be "the Disinherited."
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application