Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00162)

Dallas,

Your lifetime of study in the Theosophical Movement and devotion to 
HPB's teaching has brought you an awesome font of knowledge and insight 
into the teachings. However, may I intercede and say something on 
behalf of Paul Johnson's The Masters Revealed? I read the book when it 
first came out and published a review on the same in New Perspectives. 
While I did not agree with Paul's conclusions concerning the identity 
of the Masters, and found his methodology very troubling, I still gave 
it a positive review. Why? Because he did something that no one else 
had done. He succeeded in publishing a peer reviewed book at a 
university press on a subject that has never before been seriously 
explored in academic circles. That is an accomplishment that many a 
professor seeking publication credits for tenure would envy.  
What is important for the Theosophical Movement, is that the book 
has consequently and necessarily become a primary reference for every 
subsequent peer reviewed paper which has come out sense. Is Paul's book 
the last word on the subject? Of course not. Sooner or later, new works 
will come out which will do further research and advance the scholarship 
on the subject.  
May I conclude in saying that what Paul accomplished is deserving of 
a great deal of respect, and is a positive step in the direction of  
bringing the subject of the Masters into the arena of academic debate. 
No doubt subsequent scholarship will unveil new facts and come to 
conclusions which are very different from the Theosophical party-line.  
That is desirable, and I submit, ought to be welcomed by everyone who 
calls themselves a "Theosophist"--if they are to take seriously HPB's 
phrase that Theosophy is the search for truth. Ideally, scholarship is 
an ongoing dialogue, not a vying of axiomatic assertions.

In warm friendship
Jerry



W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:

>Oct 7, 2004
>
>Dear Mr. Johnson:
>
>In regard to matters of THEOSOPHY I object to any of those expressions which
>are not relevant to its study or research, and I do not mean all the
>effusions that carry the word "Theosophy" or "Theosophical." 
>
>What matters is the "Heart Doctrine." That is, the development and
>cultivation of the moral sense innate in all of us. The rest is as mayavic
>as last autumn's winds. 
>
>However, I remind you that you undertook on very little study or
>acquaintance to write a book concerning the great Teachers, the Mahatmas.
>In that, in my esteem, you trivialized Them and Their work. I protested. I
>also asked you some important questions. They are still unanswered. I do
>not understand why.
>
>Having spent over 36 years in India, and being quite familiar with the
>country and particularly the Punjab, I challenged your "discoveries," made
>in the course of your short visit there, of less than half a year.  
>
>I draw your attention to the fact that the Indian membership of the
>THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, whose acquaintance with their own country and the
>Mahatmas cannot be doubted, had never arrived at the conclusions you made so
>rapidly during a fleeting stay.
>
>Further, I have seen no answer from you to Mr. Daniel Caldwell's 
>
>	PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS
>
>If you have offered some answers to these, I would be glad to see them.
>
>I, indeed, will leave it to the "audience" to decide whether your
>communiqués have any value or relevance to THEOSOPHY.  
>
>Personally, and I am sorry to have to say this, I object to having to read
>what you write.
>
>What, for instance, has the psychism of Cayce to do with the goals of real
>spiritual advancement that THEOSOPHY offers and teaches?  
>
>W. Dallas TenBroeck
>
>========================================
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]