Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00690)

Hallo Paul and all,

My views are:

Thanks for mailing this.
It is to me a much appresicated email.

You wrote:
" Later, when he
was working on the Letters volume, he told me that the sole material
relevant to my own research that he found in the letters was
confirmation of HPB's esteem for and friendship with Sir Richard
Burton. I will look forward to finding out what he meant by that, if
it is included in the first volume. Also will look forward to Dr.
Tillett's comparison of John Cooper's collection of letters with the
finished product published by TPH."

If you find anything connecting HPB and Sir Richard Burton - and I mean
anything - then please let me know and perhaps also this place theos-talk.
Would you care to do that?
I find this issue relatively vital to the present sitaution of the wisdom
teachings.

I do not have the papers.
But my so-called precognitive "sensor" vibrates oddly when this issue is
mentioned.


from
M. Sufilight





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 7:22 PM
Subject: Theos-World Cooper vs. Algeo: my experience


> Hey,
>
> Still waiting for my copy of the Letters Vol. 1, and following
> discussion here on intellectual freedom in the TS--Adyar, I'm moved to
> share my contrasting experience of two Theosophists named John.
> Although I never was privileged to meet John Cooper, we corresponded
> regularly during the process of revision/expansion of my
> self-published book In Search of the Masters which became two books
> published by SUNY Press. No Theosophist was more helpful and
> encouraging to me than John Cooper, who gave my manuscript a thorough
> and careful reading and made many useful suggestions. Later, when he
> was working on the Letters volume, he told me that the sole material
> relevant to my own research that he found in the letters was
> confirmation of HPB's esteem for and friendship with Sir Richard
> Burton. I will look forward to finding out what he meant by that, if
> it is included in the first volume. Also will look forward to Dr.
> Tillett's comparison of John Cooper's collection of letters with the
> finished product published by TPH.
>
> It is well known to many if not most theos-talk participants that Dr.
> Algeo wrote the only negative review of my book The Masters Revealed
> that appeared in an official TS-Adyar publications, after a series of
> favorable reviews from John Cooper, Geoffrey Farthing, Michel
> Caracostea, and Joy Mills (in Theosophy in Australia, Theosophical
> Journal, Le Lotus Bleu, and The Quest, respectively.) That Algeo's
> position was negative was not in itself cause for complaint, but he
> misconstrued the book, ridiculed it, made obviously false accusations
> of scholarly errors, and attacked the book both in the American
> Section journal and the only scholarly journal devoted to the subject
> matter of Theosophical History. That was of course disappointing, but
> not as much as the total silence on the subject of the Masters'
> historical identities that ensued; the topic had been "put to rest."
>
> Still, a negative review or two is not such a terrible thing and does
> not necessarily reflect badly on the reviewer's position on
> intellectual freedom. The misrepresentations and false accusations
> might not have been intentional, and I had no reason to suspect any
> personal animus since Dr. Algeo had always been pleasant to me in
> person. BUT there are four factors that raise questions about his
> role in encouraging or suppressing intellectual freedom. First, in
> the late 80s on what became my self-published book, it was under
> consideration by TPH for the better part of a year (as with TUP and
> PLP.) Shirley Nicholson was my contact person, but she always made it
> clear that John Algeo was the decision maker, and finally that he was
> responsible for TPH's rejection of the ms. No problem there, of
> course. Second, after self-publication I came up with the idea of
> revising as a series of capsule biographies of HPB's mentors/sponsors
> presented chronologically, and again contacted TPH. This time I dealt
> with a different person whose name I don't recall but again it was
> made clear that Algeo was the decision man. And I was told that TPH
> would be interested in publishing the revision ONLY ON CONDITION that
> no reference be made to the Theosophical Masters' identities. It
> seems bizarre that I would have thought such a thing possible, and
> John Oliphant (author of Brother Twelve) strongly urged me not to
> consider it. But I tried in good faith to censor myself and not touch
> any Adyar sacred cow. However, once I stumbled into information about
> the connections among Sarat Chandra Das, Ugyen Gyatso, the Sengchen
> Tulku, and the TS Founders, it became clear that I couldn't avoid the
> Masters' identities issue. So I wrote to TPH that I'd seek
> publication elsewhere.
>
> Third, when I did get a contract from SUNY, I needed to get
> permissions from various publishers for quotations. TPH held
> copyright on some sources I needed, particularly Caves and Jungles
> (because newly translated). Of all the publishers I needed to contact
> for permissions, only TPH charged me: $225 for a few paragraphs of
> material written by HPB more than a century earlier, but under TPH
> copyright because newly translated. Not only that, John Algeo also
> demanded that I put a statement saying that TPH was affiliated with
> the TS which DID NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSE THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR. No
> other publisher felt any need to demand such a disclaimer or charge me
> money for permission. Fourth, years later the ARE was publishing an
> article by me and needed a picture of Annie Besant who was mentioned
> in the piece. Their editor said TPH had always been totally
> cooperative in the past, but this time they asked who was the author
> of the article for which ARE wanted the illustration. Upon being told
> who the author was, permission was denied.
>
> Bottom line, then, is that the person who is chiefly responsible for
> scholarly standards in Adyar publishing had first made TPH's decision
> against publishing a manuscript, tried to shape it into something less
> threatening to Adyar orthodoxy, behaved in a petty obstructionist
> manner after it found a scholarly publisher, and attacked and
> ridiculed the book after it was published. That one person should
> have such power and use it in such a way was reason enough to give up
> on the Adyar TS's intellectual freedom.
>
> None of this necessarily indicates that the HPB Letters project will
> be less valuable to scholars as an Algeo production than if John
> Cooper's edition had seen the light of day. But years of experience
> with both individuals, combined with Deveney's review, leads me to
> wonder what has been lost due to this change.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>