Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00109)

Hello Paul,

I glad you are enjoying the dialogue, though I don't know what you mean 
when you say that I'm quoting "toxic material." Please explain. 

Regarding changing the subject title: I agree that my posts are not 
relevant to Cayce. Actually, the post that I originally answered 
already had this title, and even then, had nothing to do with Cayce. If 
someone wants to change the subject title, that is fine with me. I 
would prefer to leave that task up to whomever posted that title in the 
first place.

You wrote:

>Years ago Daniel boasted here that a friend of his was going to India 
>to refute my books, and that was the last I heard of the matter. Now 
>you release this tidbit, and while I have no desire to know who my 
>secret antagonist was, the anecdote is intriguing to me since I 
>motivated his/her fruitless trip to India. So I would ask you to 
>comment on the story's implications.
>

I was not aware of Daniel's boast, nor do I have any idea who he is 
talking about. The person I had in mind was doing research connected to 
the Hodgson report, not to any of your writings. It is possible that 
Daniel and I are unknowingly talking about the same person, but I would 
say it is highly improbable because the person I have in mind is neither 
a friend of Daniel's, nor has even ever met him. 
Now that I re-read Dallas' post and my reply, I can see how you made the 
connection you did. However, I was picking up on Dallas' reference to 
Hodgson. It is interesting how we can find meanings in posts that were 
completely unintended by the writer. 


>Do you mean to suggest that Radha et al are in possession of facts 
>about the Masters' identities that they want to conceal from ANY 
>inquirer? That even in the case of a book they wanted to condemn or 
>dismiss, they would not allow information refuting it to be 
>discovered or made public? Or, rather, are you suggesting that they 
>don't know what secrets are in the archives, don't want to know, and 
>don't want anyone else to know? Of course I have wondered all along 
>what information that supports any of my hypotheses has been 
>concealed or even (horror of horrors) destroyed. Certainly the 
>history of the TS in the Punjab and Kashmir could be much better 
>known with archives access that just through published material.
>
>All speculation, of course, but fascinating.
> 
>

I don't think there is anything so diabolical as secrets that they are 
trying to hide. I think the situation is simply that the Adyar TS has 
an official history, so to speak. I don't mean a canonized book or 
anything like that. I mean that there are certain "facts" of 
Theosophical history which are important for the leaders to stand 
behind. To not do so risks compromising the credibility of the 
organization. So, they prefer to have their party-line version of 
history stand as the only true one, and keep historical documents away 
from those who might desire "to stir up the past" by posing alternative 
interpretations of the actual events. 

Best
--j





kpauljohnson wrote:

>Dear Jerry,
>
>I've enjoyed reading what you have to say despite the fact that it 
>causes repeated exposure to toxic material you quote. I would ask 
>you and everyone who keeps piling on the "Cayce's relevance" thread 
>to change the header. None of the last dozen or so posts have 
>anything whatsoever to do with Cayce, and it is a disservice to 
>anyone who might look through the archives to use uninformative and 
>misleading headers. You wrote, quoting Dallas:
>
> 
>
>>>I see a parallel here, like the Hodgson Report did. But unless 
>>> 
>>>
>someone will go to India and do the necessary proving and leg-work, 
>the nonsense will prevail here in the "West." -- and I cannot bear 
>to see any attempt to smirch the Great Personages to whom humanity's 
>and my Honor is due. I am too old and unwell to do it myself, but I 
>know it can be done. 
> 
>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>I would say that at this point, it cannot be done. 
>> 
>>
>
>I would ask you here not to implicitly accept DTB's false premise in 
>your response. You have previously made clear to him that my work 
>was in no way an attempt to besmirch anyone. So has Daniel. Even 
>John Algeo acknowledges that my approach is basically friendly to HPB 
>and Theosophy. (As have a large number of reviewers and authors.) 
>To have Dallas publicly repeat a libelous false accusation FOR MORE 
>THAN TEN YEARS despite having it repeatedly corrected by those in a 
>position to know-- including most of all myself repeatedly-- is 
>galling. PLEASE don't encourage this nasty-- and possibly criminal-- 
>behavior by letting the false accusation pass unchallenged. (Thanks 
>for challenging it the first time.) I simultaneously appeal to Eldon 
>not to allow anyone to be libeled here.
>
>Now to the main point:
>
> And here is why: 
> 
>
>> You are already aware that a mutual friend, who (for the sake of 
>>privacy) I will not name, did go to India and tried to do that leg-
>> 
>>
>work, only to be blocked from doing so. This was not an exception, 
>but the general rule. Nethercot, the author of a two volume 
>biography of Besant visited Adyar in the course of his research and 
>was not permitted to see any records at all. Paul Johnson, during 
>the course of his research, went to Adyar in order to access Olcott's 
>diaries, and has reported on this discussion board that he was denied 
>access to them. The truth is that those who control critical records 
>and evidence, are unwilling to allow access to anyone making an open 
>inquiry who might come to conclusions that could challenge or in some 
>way modify the party-line version of history that has been embedded 
>in the Theosophical theology.
>--------------------------------------------
>
>Years ago Daniel boasted here that a friend of his was going to India 
>to refute my books, and that was the last I heard of the matter. Now 
>you release this tidbit, and while I have no desire to know who my 
>secret antagonist was, the anecdote is intriguing to me since I 
>motivated his/her fruitless trip to India. So I would ask you to 
>comment on the story's implications.
>
>Do you mean to suggest that Radha et al are in possession of facts 
>about the Masters' identities that they want to conceal from ANY 
>inquirer? That even in the case of a book they wanted to condemn or 
>dismiss, they would not allow information refuting it to be 
>discovered or made public? Or, rather, are you suggesting that they 
>don't know what secrets are in the archives, don't want to know, and 
>don't want anyone else to know? Of course I have wondered all along 
>what information that supports any of my hypotheses has been 
>concealed or even (horror of horrors) destroyed. Certainly the 
>history of the TS in the Punjab and Kashmir could be much better 
>known with archives access that just through published material.
>
>All speculation, of course, but fascinating.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Paul 
>
>
>
> 
>



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