Re: Theos-World Jerry: Teachers & Teaching
Mar 11, 2006 06:30 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Dear Carlos,
When Paul Johnson writes that she lied, or implies that she lied, that she
was a Spy, etc. (which she denied vehemently and unendingly) he is saying
that her philosophy is the philosophy of a liar, the philosophy of a
fraudulent woman.
I don't recall Paul writing that HPB "lied", though I am aware that in
TMR he was careful about taking anything HPB writes at face value.
Based upon my own study of HPB, I would have to agree with him on this
point. For instance, HPB's series, From the Caves and Jungles of
Hindostan, is a mixture of real events and artistic elaboration. Yet, I
know of more than one person who has mistakenly taken this work to be an
historical account. I believe that it never was intended to be so.
Rather, it is an artistic work which also contains a lot of veiled
teachings. So, the point rests upon what one qualifies to be a lie. To
take a more general instance, an autobiography as literature is
generally thought of as nonfiction. Yet, can we really expect people to
write about themselves without being selective and biased concerning
events and personal experiences? Does that selectivity and biases make
such writers liars? Like most everyone else, HPB preferred that the
personal details of her life remain private. Sinnett found this out when
he tried to write her Biography. HPB did not want him to write it, but
he pressured her until she gave in enough to answer his questions. The
resulting book was a confused mess because she also did not go out of
her way to make sure that what Sinnett wrote was accurate. Did that make
her a liar?
As for her philosophy, HPB warned her readers that her teachings had to
be read with a healthy dose of metaphor. In the SD, she points out to
her readers the ridiculous mess many students made out of the globes and
rounds teachings because of their over literalism. In his writings,
W.B. Yeats, one of HPB's students, recalled another student telling him
that HPB told him there is another globe attached to this one at the
north pole. Yeats, who I believe, understood HPB more deeply than most
of her students replied, "Oh she must be referring to some myth." The
student replied, "Oh no. If it wasn't true, then HPB wouldn't have said
it." The student, of course, completely missed Yeats' point. When it
come to spiritual truths, mythology (mythos) communicates deeper truths
than literal accounts (logos) could ever do. HPB alludes to this point
over and over again, yet so many students of Theosophy completely miss
it. Was Homer a liar when he wrote the Odyssey? If Homer was a liar,
then so was HPB.
Best
Jerry
carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
Dear Jerry,
Thanks, brother.
Theosophy is about Truth, as you know.
The motto of the theosophical movement is about Truth, as we know.
HPB wrote many times that Ethics and Truthfulness are of the essence in
Theosophy.
When Paul Johnson writes that she lied, or implies that she lied, that she
was a Spy, etc. (which she denied vehemently and unendingly) he is saying
that her philosophy is the philosophy of a liar, the philosophy of a
fraudulent woman.
This would be no Philosophy. At best, this would be Sophism. Why? Let's
see.
As you may know, the difference between Philosophy and Sophism, in classical
terms, is that the Philosopher lives his teaching as much as he can, while
the Sophist presents the most "suitable" and attractive ideas in a given
moment, without living these ideas.
Ethics and Truthfulness connect the teacher to the teaching, and it also
connect the student to the teaching.
It is not repeating ideas or reading books that connect us to the teaching.
So, by his disguised ways to half-say HPB was a fraud, Paul is trying to
destroy the ETHICAL BASIS of Theosophy, which, as we saw above, is of the
ESSENCE in Esoteric Philosophy.
Summing it up, those who attack the Teachers attack the teaching.
That the attack is disguised does not mean it is no attack. We must examine
what is under the
surface, and that is Occultism, as we know.
I hope that helps.
Peace to all beings,
Carlos.
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@charter.net>
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Johnson Anti-Theosophist
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:50:44 -0800
Dear Carlos,
Paul's books are no Theosophy. That's what I meant.
You are right. They are not about Theosophy. One is an historical
investigation into the identity of HPB's teachers. Another is about
people in HPB's circle. Another is about Edgar Cayce. I don't
understand why this is a problem.
His texts aim at distorting Theosophy into something fraudulent, or
semi-fraudulent.
Since they are not about Theosophy, how can they be distorting Theosophy?
Solovyof and the Coulombs were not "taking Theosophy to the public
opinion"
when they went to the newspapers to attack HPB and the theosophical
movement.
Yes, I agree, Solovyof and the Colombs were not taking Theosophy to
public opinion. They were publishing their opinions about HPB (not the
Theosophical Movement), which were not very good. But what does this
have to do with Paul's books?
On the other hand, having been published by one University Press is no
big
deal, as we have hundreds of Universities around the world, publishing
hundreds of books
every year.
But how many of them concern the Theosophical Movement? That is why
Paul's books on the Mahatmas is important. It brings them to the
attention of the academic discourse community for discussion.
Fortunately, his lies about Theosophy and the Masters will not have an
"academic" future.
The book has already been successful in the academic community. Its
future is already assured. As for "lies:" I understand a lie to be a
consciously calculated falsehood. Are you saying that Paul consciously
calculated to demean Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement? If so,
where is your evidence?
Carlos, HPB was a very complex personality and there are published a
whole spectrum of opinions about her. Some are negative, some
positive. My own thesis I wrote for a masters degree was on the
relationship between HPB. and WB Yeats and her influence upon his
writings. It took me seven years to write it that 471 page tome and
during that period I thought of little else but to ponder HPB's nature
and what she was trying to communicate. One thing that I came to realize
is that if HPB's critics are guilty of unjustly villainizing her, HPB's
follows are just as guilty of distorting who she was by blindly
idolizing her. Yeats, who profoundly respected HPB, was also deeply
aware of, and was disturbed by the constant fanaticism that occurred
around HPB and her teachers. He even recounts one fanatic follower's
attempted suicide! Please, let us all take a deep breath and take a
step or two back from all of this craziness. HPB made her contributions
and she died. Opinions about her will come and go. What is important
and lasting is her contribution to the Theosophical Movement. There is
nothing to be gained, and only pain to be reaped by abusing people
because of their opinions.
Best wishes,
Jerry
carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
Dear Jerry,
Paul's books are no Theosophy. That's what I meant.
His texts aim at distorting Theosophy into something fraudulent, or
semi-fraudulent.
Solovyof and the Coulombs were not "taking Theosophy to the public
opinion"
when they
went to the newspapers to attack HPB and the theosophical movement.
On the other hand, having been published by one University Press is no
big
deal, as we
have hundreds of Universities around the world, publishing hundreds of
books
every year.
Fortunately, his lies about Theosophy and the Masters will not have an
"academic" future.
As to the theosophical movement, much less.
Best regards, Carlos.
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@charter.net>
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World P. Johnson Ignores Theosophy
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:58:34 -0800
Dear Carlos,
Paul did not take Theosophy to the Universities --
Apparently I was not sufficiently clear. Paul's book on the Masters
was published by the State University of New York (SUNY), which is a
scholarly press. The difference between a scholarly press and a
commercial press is that in the former, the manuscript is passed around
to other scholars in the field who critically read it and recommend
whether the manuscript is worthy of publication or not. I was for a few
years a member of the American Academy of Religions (AAR) which is a
professional association, mostly of professors of religious studies.
There, I met and spoke with several of the professors who read and
passed his work.
and I doubt of his books'
actual circulation in Universities.
You mean as a text book for students? Well, I don't know one way or the
other. Professors in American Universities do pretty much what they want
as far as what text books they use. But I do know some professors who
have read the book and I have discussed it with them.
What he tried to take to Universities is a completely mundane view of
HPB/Masters,at the personal level, according to which HPB may have been
a
fraud and the
"Masters" are persons with mudane, worldly goals, not Adepts.
When the book first came out, I openly debated Paul on theos-talk
concerning his methodology and conclusions. I'm sure you will find all
of this in the archives.
So, my own points of disagreement were expressed many years ago and I do
not wish to revisit them now. However, as I had already stated below,
IMO, the important thing about Paul's book is that it was published by a
scholarly press, as opposed to a Theosophical press. If he only
published in the Theosophical press, his readership would be mostly
Theosophists and sympathizers with Theosophy. By publishing the book
with SUNY, he brought an examination of the subject of the Masters to
the academic community to be discussed, considered and debated. As a
result, there is a growing number of people in the academic community
who are becoming interested in Theosophy. I think it is a good thing
that academics are becoming interested in Theosophy. Don't you?
Have you seen Theosophy, or Esoteric Philosophy, in his books or
writings?
Anything more than a peronsalistic "Who's Who"?
His books are not on Esoteric Philosophy. His book on the Masters is an
historical *inquiry* into the identity of HPB's teachers. When I want
to read on Esoteric Philosophy, I usually sit down with the Mahatma
Letters to A.P. Sinnett.
Best wishes,
Jerry
carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
Dear Jerry,
Paul did not take Theosophy to the Universities -- and I doubt of his
books'
actual
circulation in Universities.
What he tried to take to Universities is a completely mundane view of
HPB/Masters,
at the personal level, according to which HPB may have been a fraud and
the
"Masters"
are persons with mudane, worldly goals, not Adepts.
Have you seen Theosophy, or Esoteric Philosophy, in his books or
writings?
Anything
more than a peronsalistic "Who's Who"?
Carlos.
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@charter.net>
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World P. Johnson, Greenpeace & Freud
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:20:07 -0800
Dear Carlos,
Paul Johnson has been trying to explain HPB as a semifraudulent woman
and
to
describe the Masters as non-Adepts. To his mind, there are no
metaphysical
or spiritual mysteries to be solved.
I always finding myself wincing whenever I hear or read someone
explaining someone else. It is a kind of a dismissal of another
credibility--an implication that the person in question cannot be
trusted to explain themselves. I would much rather see a dialogue
where
the person in question is asked what he/she is trying to do, or is
thinking.
For me, the fact that Paul Johnson comes to the movement with such
wildly
speculative and mundane theories, and his books are read and
accepted
by
some for a while (although they were never accepted by any
theosophical
publisher, naturally) is, itself, a subject for some self-
examination
of
the movement.
Is the value of a book necessarily based upon whether it is accepted?
Paul published the his book about the Masters through a university
press. That means that he submitted his writing to scholarly scrutiny.
What is valuable about Paul's book is that it created a dialogue
within
the academic community about the existence and nature of the Masters.
It
is the dialogue--the exploration, not the acceptance, that is
important.
In the long run, bringing Theosophy into academic circles can do
nothing but good for the movement. Remember that HPB attracted some
of
the greatest minds of her time. Those were the days when Theosophy
was
credible, was seriously talked of among scholars. I would like to see
a
return to those days. Paul's book was a step in that direction.
Best wishes,
Jerry
carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
PAUL JOHNSON, GREENPEACE AND PSYCHOANALYSIS
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Dear Friends,
Paul Johnson has been trying to explain HPB as a semifraudulent woman
and
to
describe the Masters as non-Adepts. To his mind, there are no
metaphysical
or spiritual mysteries to be solved.
It is always a question of who's who. He invented the "People's
magazine"
Theosophy, as if
the facts of Adepthood were a fiction -- false facts used perhaps
to
cover
frauds and a "market for tricks", as he suggests in his 1987 text on
HPB's
'Veiled Years'.
He does not perceive that also Jesus, as described in the New
Testament,
had his "veiled years".
He does not know, or is not interested, for instance, in the fact
that
in
Carlos Castaneda's books, as in HPB's life, "leaving no traces of
one's
existence in the world" is an active part of the training of
disciples
during certain stages of their learning.
For me, the fact that Paul Johnson comes to the movement with such
wildly
speculative and mundane theories, and his books are read and
accepted
by
some for a while (although they were never accepted by any
theosophical
publisher, naturally) is, itself, a subject for some self-
examination
of
the movement.
If Paul Johnson would go to the international leadership of
"Greenpeace"
or
of "Friends of the
Earth" and kindly submit to them a new theory, according to which the
campaigns for the defense of the Amazon region and forests worldwide
are
based on fraudulent theories, or in theories "possibly fraudulent",
inspired
in political motivations,etc., what would be the answer? Would there
be
a
John Algeo to receive Paul Johnson with his theories at Greenpeace?
If Paul Johnson would go to the Psychoanalytical Society and most
kindly
submit them a brand new
and stupendous theory according to which Sigmund Freud was in fact a
shallow
man, unable to explore the depths of human-animal soul (fourth and
fifth
principles), with its unconscious impulses, but that Freud just
plagiarized
someone else and was really interested in other goals, under the
cover
of
his psychoanalytical investigations -- what would be the result?
If Paul Johnson would go to the Jungian Analitycal circles with an
equivalent story about Carl G. Jung, what would be the result?
Well, Paul Johnson did come to the theosophical movement with this
kind
of
theory, putting himself much above HPB, purporting to unveil the
"Masters",
etc., and he had a John Algeo to receive him, and other
pseudo-theosophical
leaders to open room to his ideas.
For me, as for thousands of students worldwide, Theosophy as taught
by
HPB
and the Masters is something which is alive. It is experimental. It
can
be
touched, although it can't be touched with physical feet or hands. It
can
be
touched by one's soul, by one's clear mind, by one's inner senses.
And, just because Paul cannot "see" or experiment Theosophy, he has
to
saythat it is "perhaps a fraud", "perhaps semi-fraud". And
pseudo-theosophists find his ideas interesting, possibly because
these
ideas offer them an escape from the challenge of LIVING THEOSOPHY in
their
own daily lives.
If Paul would investigate Leadbeater, he would see fraud. Yet,
investigating
HPB, he saw nothing; he only projected on his own mind that which he
wanted
to see.
"Unconscious Kriyashakti" is the name of this, as well stated by E.L.
Gardner in another context.
So the fact that Paul Johnson's ideas still have any circulation in
the
outskirts of the theosophical movement, from my viewpoint, is much
more
a
sympton than a fact in itself of any importance. It is a sympton
that
we
are too gullible, naive and scarcely experiential in our approach to
the
Divine Wisdom. We are open to whatever new theories which promise
saving
the
effort to seek universal truth for ourselves, along a steep and
narrow
path...
Paul Johnson is like those "paparazzi" who try to make revelations
about
the British Royal family or other "famous" people.
For those "researchers" there are no real people in the British Royal
family. There's othing "internal", subjective, human. It's only a
gossipy
question of "who's who", an issue of personal names and intrigues.
C.W. Leadbeater reduced his pseudo-theosophy to this.
CWL started the paparazzi-personalistic approach (See, for instance,
his
book "Lives of Alcyone"). And then, decades later, we had Paul
Johnson,
who
possibly doesn't even consider himself as a theosophist.
And, even though he probably does not call himself a theosophist, he
humbly
puts himself far above theosophists.
And he kindly intends to teach to us, for the price of his books,
all
mysteries of Theosophy, which we "don't know".
He must be proud of his modesty. This is a nice "scholarly" guru, who
wants
to teach us that HPB was "possibly a fraud" and in this -- ignores
the
SPR
1986 conclusions and all the evidences that HPB was a great soul.
And Paul, when shown as he is -- someone who denies the most basic
assets
of the Esoteric Philosophy -- feels attacked. But -- what is he
doing
to
HPB and the Masters?
In a deeper perspective, though, he is not attacking the movement. He
is
just testing it, as John Algeo is -- and, after all, tests tend to
awaken
the deeper layers of the living process inaugurated in 1875 by HPB
and
W.
Judge.
As to me, tests are welcome. Let's go ahead, then, with an
open-minded,
sincere debate.
Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Re: Paul & "The Masters Revealed"
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:06:37 -0000
Dear Krsanna,
Thanks for an opportunity to clarify some points in a rancor-free
context. Bruce wrote:
"What Paul may have stumbled on in his book "The Masters Revealed"
is the people involved in HPB's education. A world-wide network of
men trying to inspire good people to stand up against tyranny."
While "network" might fit in a very broad sense, that is *HPB's*
network of inspirers, teachers, etc., it tends to obscure that there
were multiple lineages, multiple secret societies and spiritual
reform movements, with whom HPB was allied and from whom she learned
at different times. Some were much more politically involved than
others. And some *became* much more political *after* HPB got
involved with them. What is especially important to me now, and to
the Church of Light which I recently joined, is the transfer of
HPB's
allegiance from her Egyptian (and Egyptophile European and
American) "brotherhoods" (which involved women too, most importantly
Emma Hardinge Britten) to a completely different set of Indian
sponsors. Godwin's The Theosophical Enlightenment gives a fuller
explanation of this transfer than my books do.
Two key figures involved in that transfer were Swami Dayananda,
about
whom I would urge anyone interested in the Masters question to think
outside the box of Theosophical exegesis, and Mikhail Katkov, who
published HPB's Indian writings in Russian. Both were obviously
revered as spiritual Masters by their disciples-- formally so in the
Swami's case and informally so in Katkov's.
HPB always said the adepts were living men who were part of a
worldwide network that reached far into antiquity. To identify
living men associated with HPB is not surprising. As far as I can
tell from recent posts, Paul Johnson excluded the "paranormal" from
his research to identify some of very real, very human men in HPB's
association.
Real and human but at the same time in most cases recognized
authorities in various spiritual traditions. Here's a quote from
TMR
that Desmond recently produced that goes to the heart of your post:
In "The Masters Revealed" you set forth the thesis that "most of
these
characters were authorities in one or more spiritual traditions;
others were accomplished writers. They helped prepare HPB for her
mission as a spiritual teacher and/or sponsored the Theosophical
Society from behind the scenes. Although their teachings and
example
affected HPB's development, the extent of their influence was
usually
secret. In a few cases the argument for their acquaintance with HPB
is speculative, but usually the fact of a relationship is well
established and the real question is its meaning. Because their
'spiritual status' and psychic powers are inaccessible to historical
research, these alleged criteria of 'Mahatmaship' are treated with
agnosticism." (p. 14-15) Personally, I see in these few words not
only a lack of personal bias but also an abundance of integrity.
Thanks to Desmond for the last line. I would just comment as an
aside to Carlos that it makes no sense to say that because spiritual
stature and psychic powers of figures from the past are not readily
accessible to historical investigation, that we ought not pursue
*any
knowledge whatsoever* about individuals who have been identified as
adepts, because adepts by definition transcend physicality. NO
ONE's
spiritual stature and psychic powers are accessible to standard
scholarly investigation; the obvious implication would be that
historians are committing a spiritual crime to write about *anyone
who ever lived*. Otherwise we are left with special pleading that
says it's OK to ask historical questions about Jesus or Buddha or
Alice Bailey but don't dare ask them about HPB and her Masters
because they are not only beyond reproach but exempt from normal
historical scrutiny. That might play in the ULT or the Adyar ES but
it's Theosophical dogma that no one outside the movement will take
seriously. Why should they? It's like Muslims saying cartoons about
everyone else are fine, but if they're about Muhammad let's have
riots. That just makes the special pleaders look like enraged
fanatics.
Nobody, to my knowledge, ever claimed that Morya's
adept lineage terminated with Morya.
I've read only an excerpt from Paul Johnson's book, so I don't know
how clear he was about the limitations of his research. A good
researcher defines the parameters of the work undertaken.
That was a very important objective of The Masters Revealed, whereas
its self-published predecessor was considerably less clear about
what
was being hypothesized. On the back cover of TMR the first reader
report excerpt quoted (from Hal French of the U. of South Carolina)
says this: "The author has transferred the discussion of Blavatsky's
sources from the realm of the mythical to the historical. He has
given us a well-researched series of capsuled biographies of persons
from whom Blavatsky learned, and the nature of her relationships
with
each of them. His work brings reasoned conclusions into an area
characterized by vituperative and polarized scholarship. He sets
his
limits well. He has not overstretched his mark nor made excessive
claims for his conclusions." The same could be said for Joscelyn
Godwin whose Theosophical Enlightenment is intertwined with TMR in
several ways.
Showing that ordinary people possess extraordinary potentials is a
worthy study. Albeit, this was not Paul Johnson's objective, and he
attempted only to identify ordinary people.
Not quite. How ordinary these people were varies from case to case.
That several were highly regarded as adepts within specific
traditions testifies that they were not seen as ordinary by their
colleagues and associates. It's just that their extraordinariness
is
approached historically rather than religiously, as something to be
established (or rather defined) via evidence and reason rather than
ex cathedra pronouncements or reliance on scriptural authority.
Back to politics for a moment, I will just say that my books don't
portray HPB as someone who was motivated primarily by politics, but
rather as someone who was caught up in politics through her
associations with people in India, and lived to regret it. After
leaving India, she appears to have renounced any involvement in
politics and even offered to become an informant on anti-British
activities she had learned about. So it's not a simple yes/no
question as to whether she or her Masters were involved in politics.
Just as it's not a simple yes/no question as to whether the Masters
depicted in her writings were "real." Some were a lot more real
than
others, in terms of the amount of fictionalization involved. No one
has ever doubted the reality of Dayananda; but Theosophists
conveniently forget that HPB and Olcott definitely regarded him in
the adept/Mahatma category when they went to India and only later
changed their opinion.
Cheers,
Paul
_________________________________________________________________
Copa 2006: Juiz @#$%*&!? e mais frases para seu MSN Messenger
http://copa.br.msn.com/extra/frases/
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
_________________________________________________________________
Ganhe tempo encontrando o arquivo ou e-mail que você precisa com
Windows
Desktop Search. Instale agora em http://desktop.msn.com.br
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
_________________________________________________________________
Facilite sua vida: Use o Windows Desktop Search e encontre qualquer
arquivo
ou e-mail em seu PC. Acesse: http://desktop.msn.com.br
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
_________________________________________________________________
Ligações gratuitas de PC-para-PC para qualquer lugar do Brasil e do mundo
com o MSN Messenger. Saiba mais em
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/default2.aspx?locale=pt-br
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
