Paul & "The Masters Revealed"
Mar 08, 2006 09:12 AM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline
Dear Bil, dear Paul, dear Friends,
I understand Paul is back to Theos-talk, so this is addressed to him, too.
I will answer now some of Bill's statements and questions below.
Years ago, I had one of Paul Johnson's books at my disposal, looked at it
and decided
I was not interested.
Beside his recent correspondence, I have with me his text "Madame Blavatsky,
the 'Veiled Years' "
(T.H.C. London 1987).
I also have the "Review Essay" by John Algeo on his book "The Masters
Revealed", published in "Theosophical History", July 1995. And I have the
recent posting by Paul Johnson with the story of his relations with the TPH
and John Algeo.
In that story,you will see that he had fluid relations with the USA TPH
for years. You will see that, according to Paul, and I quote ---
"" 'In Search of the Masters' was surprisingly well received in the
Theosophical world, and didn't receive many attacks. John
Algeo never indicated any discomfort with the book or desire to
squelch it. When I decided to revise and condense it in the
form of a series of biographical chapters, I offered it to TPH
and the answer was that they would consider it if I was willing
to remove or downplay the identifications of M., K.H., etc. and
focus mostly on the historical people themselves. This was in
1992; I sent the Ms. in to Brenda Rosen who replied in essence,
"No, you completely rewrite it *first* and then we'll consider
it." I agreed to do so but the research led in other
directions and ultimately I informed her that I would not be
able to revise in the way she had requested. Not long after,
SUNY Press came through with a contract.
When "The Masters Revealed" came out in 1994, I had no hard
feelings toward TPH, TUP, PLP or THF although it had been
disappointing that things fell through and that in no case did
I get any substantive feedback on the research (in a cumulative
3.5 years of consideration!) I went to Wheaton the week it
was published, was very cordial with John and everyone there,
and felt that the book would be no less politely received than
its far inferior predecessor. After all the SUNY imprimatur
should bring some increased respect, no?
Then the positive reviews started flowing, in and outside of the
movement, and by February 1995 things had reached a peak of
welcoming reception, with the simultaneous appearance of a rave
in the New York Times Book Review and a favorable review by Joy
Mills in The Quest. I was so pleased by the latter that I sent
an email to John Algeo thanking him for letting it appear.
Here's where the story begins to turn sour.
John had sent me warm, encouraging, supportive email just a few
weeks before, saying to pay no mind to the hostile attacks I
was getting on theos-l from outraged Theosophists. And this
time, when I wrote thanking him for the Quest piece, he replied
in a friendly way, saying that he was glad I liked it but that
he had more reservations about the book than Joy did-- and that
he'd like to discuss it with me. My reply was that
reservations were of course warranted; that the book proved
HPB's association with Masters in one sense (that of
recognized experts in various spiritual traditions, from whom
she learned) but not in the other sense of spiritually advanced
beings with paranormal abilities, since that was beyond the
reach of historical research.""
So far, Paul's words. End of quote.
From this point on, his narrative describes how John Algeo turned against
him. In the quotation above, you have what, in my opinion and assessment
(and I respect other opinions) corresponds to an opening of territory to
Paul Johnson's perspective about the Masters.
Since 1875, the theme of the Mahatmas as individuals has always been
considered reserved, or PRIVATE, for magnetic and other reasons.
It is true that A. P. Sinnett started the vulgarization; Leadbeater went on;
but since mid century some more care was taken. And sincere people, even if
under serious illusions, have some respect if not devotion for the Masters
and HPB. Devotion can be accompanied by an open mind, as you may know.
It is from the viewpoint of aspirants to discipleship, then, or from the
viewpoint of earnest and lifelong students of HPB/Masters, that Paul
Johnson's perspective tends to be a gross vulgarization of the idea of
Adept-Teachers.
By now, I have reasons to believe that Paul Johnson is an honest person, and
I respect that, since
I believe sincerity is of the essence and more important than one's ideas at
the lower mental plane.
But if Paul Johnson never belonged to the inner organizations of the Adyar
Movement, and could not have a knowledge or a "sense", let's say, of the
real approach to the Mystery of aspiration to lay discipleship, that cannot
be said of John Algeo, who helped open room for Johnson's books within the
movement.
The long examination and summary Algeo makes of "The Masters Revealed" in
"Theosophical History", July 1995, is itself an absurd, because of the
totally naive approach of the book with regard to the Masters and HPB.
The "name-by-name-discussion" Algeo indulges in, with regard to the
"Masters' revelation",
would be hilarious if it were not too disgusting.
According to Algeo, Paul Johnson considers HPB a "Russian Spy", etc. Well,
she has written vehemently about that, explaining why Solovyof invented that
lie. It is in her letters to Sinnett.
To give credit to a man like V. Solovyof ( a man whose personal "ethics"
was similar to James Wedgwood's in many ways, if you know what I mean) --
and to deny HPB's words and evidences
that SHE WAS NOT A SPY is more than a flagrant injustice to Truth, first,
and to HPB and the movement, second.
Talking about that, discussing it without mentioning HPB's viewpoint and her
words, is tantamount
to making libels circulate, in my view.
If Paul Johnson does not want to have respect for HPB and wants to sell a
book saying she was a Spy, this is one thing. He may say and write
whatever he wants. But when the president of the Adyar TS in the USA (now
international vice-president) does the same, or helps this perspective
circulate inside the movement, this is another, different thing.
I guess this is enough. If you see Algeo's "review", you will examine all
purported "personal names" of the Mahatmas. John Algeo writes:
""... Johnson's aim in this thesis to "identify' the Masters is reasonable
and of considerable interest.""
(T.H., July 1995, p. 238).
And then Algeo goes on to discuss all minute, useless and fanciful details
of speculations about Adepts as if they were some historical characters
completely immersed in present human Karma!!!
You see what I mean?
Algeo says, p. 245:
""Johnson's thesis is a revisionist view of the Theosophical Masters, making
them neither what Blavatsky and others said them to be nor sheer
inventions, but rather elaborations of historically attested prototypes.
That is a reasonable thesis to consider."" ( T.H., JUly 1995, p. 245).
Reasonable thesis ???
Such a thesis cannot be considered reasonable, in a Theosophical Society,
because it shows a
complete absence of knowledge about what is an Adept.
That is why no Theosophical Publisher, as long as I know, accepted Paul's
books. But their
ambiguity, their long examination of the originals, their long discussing
these books, this is meaningful, and in this sense I say that Algeo (and
others) used Paul and his books as a way to discredit HPB and the Masters.
And, of course, this was not honest with Paul, either.
As Gregory Tilletts biography of C. W. Leadbeater showed who CWL was since
the early 1980s,
it was "extremely convenient" for some theosophical cardinals to put HPB at
the same moral level as the "Bishop".
As to Daniel Caldwell / David Green, his websites published Paul's texts and
books for a number of years, if I remember it right from one of Paul's
postings at the Theos-talk. And, if you ask Paul, he will certainly agree
that Daniel Caldwell and John Algeo are, or seem to be, most close allies.
And I add: they share the same "editorial policy"...
Believing as I believe that Paul Johnson is a basically honest person, I
hope he goes ahead and learns in the future something about the nature of
spiritual teachers, be them Adepts or not.
Once he perceives the inner aspects and energies present in the HPB's
writings, in the Mahatma Letters, and in other books and authors, he will
understand what I and many theosophists
mean by the idea of "respect for H.P.B.".
I have some confidence in that, since Paul has shown here at Theos-talk that
he is a man of good will. I sincerely hope dialogue will bring a better
perspective about the Mystery of Initiates, whose identities are NOT in
their identity cards, so to say.
As to the pamphlet "Madame Blavatsky and the 'Veiled Years' ", by P.
Johnson, it is very much in the same line as "The Masters Revelad". Paul
writes, page 7:
"There are two questions (...).The first concerns the relative genuiness of
Gurdjieff and Blavatsky (...). Both may have been charlatans, with Gurdjieff
merely exploiting the market created by H.P.B. (...)."
And so he proceeds with several speculations of that same level...
But, as I said earlier, the real problem is not with Paul. He has my
sincere good wishes and my respect, as you have, Bill.
Peace to all beings,
Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline
O o o O o o O o o O
From: Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Carlos and the "The Masters Revealed"???
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:16:57 -0500
carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> I forgot to write that Paul Johson's books have a lot in common with
John
> Algeos perspective.
>
Are you saying now that you have in fact read PJ's books and are no
longer passing judgement based on what others have told you to think
about them? Good for you then. No doubt you have also sat and talked
with John Algeo for at least long enough to understand his perspective?
Good for you again.
> There is a common lack of perception about the deeper aspects of the
> Esoteric Philosophy.
>
This is your perspective. Could you give us some specific examples from
your interaction with Johnson's books and Algeo's perspective that we
could then examine for ourselves and perhaps either arrive at a similar
conclusion as yours or a different conclusion altogether.
> P. Johnson (who was a Caldwell's and an Algeo's ally for years) will
not
> discuss deep questions regarding the movement or the spiritual path.
>
Have you attempted to discuss deep questions with either of these
individuals? Sorry, but to me it sounds like you really are saying that
these individuals will not agree with your personally accepted answers
to the deep questions regarding the movement or the spiritual path. If
that is the case, feel free to add me to the list.
Could you be more specific about your statement that Johnson, Caldwell,
and Algeo were allies for years? I have not been privvy to any
information that would lead me to this same conclusion unless you mean
that these three were allied in their desire to shed some additional
light on the deep questions regarding the movement or the spiritual
path. Also, could you provide some idea of what you mean by "spiritual
path"? Often such a phrase is used to divide our brothers into that
group that is with us on "our" path and those that are not with us and
are therefore against us because they dare to tread a different
spiritual path.
> The difference is that Paul does not have a personal project involving
> political power in the movement. An important difference, by the way.
>
Do you have a personal project involving political power in the movement?
> Yet -- a book called "The Masters Revealed" -- that is a disaster. That
was
> most convenient
> to Algeo and to Caldwell -- for a time.
>
Can you explain why a book called "The Masters Revealed" is a disaster?
Do you find it "disgusting" as well?
>
> Best regards, Carlos.
>
>
> peace,
>
bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@earthlink.net>
>> Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Theos-World Aveline, Caldwell , Algeo & Dugpas
>> Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 11:40:13 -0500
>>
>>
>>
>> carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
>>
>>> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOO
>>>
>>> An Adept-Teacher Explains:
>>>
>>> Libels Against HPB Were Made By Dugpas in Vatican and Bhutan.
>>>
>>> ARE DANIEL CALDWELL AND JOHN ALGEO NOW
>>>
>>> CONSCIOUSLY PUBLICIZING THE WORK OF DUGPAS?
>>>
>>> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOO
>>>
>>>
>> Another perspective:
>>
>> Is Carlosaveline Cardoso Aveline now perpetuating the heightened public
>> interest in the lies published about HPB through his extensive and
>> relentless letter writing campaign protesting against the book LETTERS
>> OF HPB and attacking Caldwell and Algeo as agents of dugpas? Is
Aveline
>> consciously drawing the attention of the public toward "the libels
>> against HPB" and actually contributing to the increased sales and
>> publicity of said book?
>>
>> Methinks he doth protest too much.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Copa 2006: Sabe como se diz ‘pênalti’ em alemão? Clique aqui!
> http://copa.br.msn.com/extra/dicionario/l-z/
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
_________________________________________________________________
Copa 2006: Já está na hora de saber o que é ‘Freundschaftsspiel’ Clique
aqui! http://copa.br.msn.com/extra/dicionario/
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
