Jerry, Johnson and HPB
Mar 12, 2006 07:32 AM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline
Dear Jerry,
Thanks for your views.
1) I will quote from Paul Johnson's pamplhlet "Madame Blavatsky, the 'veiled
years' " (THC, London, 1987, p. 07):
"There are two obvious questions(...) The first concerns the relative
genuiness of Gurdjieff and Blavatsky as emissaries of occult orders. Both
may have been charlatans, with Gurdjieff merely exploiting the market
created by H.P.B. (...)."
Is that clear?
In page 03 of the same pamphlet, Johnson explains "why" HPB was a fraud, or
"had fraudulent aspects" in her behaviour and work. HPB is but a mirror for
him as for many people.
2) Besides, I friendly challenge you to extract from Johnson any clear
declaration that he does NOT consider HPB a fraud, and that he considers her
as a sincere, honest, decent woman, author and teacher. He uses the same
"maybe" tactics as Algeo and others, in the way he slanders HPB. All his
books use that strategy. As he wants to sell his books, he will most likely
NOT contradict himself in that. (In his "approach", Paul ignores the 1986
declaration of the SPR, etc.)
3) Of course, Esoteric Philosophy cannot be understood at the level of outer
appearances ("face value"). True. Esoteric Philosophy deals with the
occult, or essential aspects of life, which are "invisible to the eyes" (to
use St. Exupery's expression). Yet they are invisible NOT because they are
false, as illustrated-ignorants like Paul Johnson and John Algeo will say.
Essential aspects of life can be seen only by the heart. See the 'Doctrine
of the Eye' versus the 'Doctrine of the Heart' in "The Voice of the
Silence".
4) As to HPB being a fraud or semi-fraud, it is enough to see her astral
chart. She was a Leo in the sun sign. Is Leo a sign for fraud or lies? No.
It is the most brave and loyal sign, directly opposite to the sometimes
unstable, anxious and astute Scorpio (while Scorpio as a sign also has very
good qualities, of course). HPB was Cancer in her ascendant -- a
personality strongly emotional, sincere, loving, direct, sensitive, open,
compassionate, sometimes too vulnerable -- and uncapable of deceiving. No
frauds, then. Her Moon was in Libra -- her emotions were transparent,
rational, inclined to justice and reciprocity, also vulnerable, and far
from allowing her to have any cold outer mask. And -- she spent most of her
life fighting cold outer personality masks, which she called "shells'. She
had reasons to do so. All of her philosophy is the philosophy of universal
truth and personal sincerity. Those who attack her personal,
Lion/Cancer/Libra honesty and openess, are attacking the essential ethical
basis of her philosophy.
5) I cannot agree that the book "Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky",
by A. P. Sinnett, is a "confused mess". In fact, it is a major source of
first-hand evidence on HPB's life. It is the cause of many of HPB's letters
now available. Because of this, Vera, HPB's sister, wrote important texts
about the life of the founder of the theosophical movement.
6) As to the absence of data about HPB's life, there are two points I want
to make.
First, the life of every regular disciple will have mysterious aspects. They
have to protect all their inner lives from "outward magnetism". See
Alessandro Cagliostro, Count of St. Germain and others, equally mysterious,
and equally called "charlatans" by the Paul-Johnsons and V. Solovyofs of
their times. The libellers of Initiates enjoy selling books with their
fancied "revelations".
Second, HPB, as Carlos Castaneda and other learners, trained herself for
some time in self-forgetfulness, which includes "erasing the signs of every
step taken in the world". This is something
which people who do not understand a iota of esoteric philosophy cannot ever
understand.
7) Up to a few days ago, I thought Johnson to be honestly self-deluded. I
have to apologize for that. I have learned better. Paul makes brutal though
disguised attacks to HPB and the Masters, but, when confronted with the
facts, he tries to cover himself with the false mantle and role of a poor,
delicate and innocent victim.
As we have a rather long history of disguised and ambiguous attacks against
HPB, this is not initially easy to identify. But time will help truth as it
always does, in this aspect as in many others.
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@charter.net>
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Jerry: Teachers & Teaching
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:30:13 -0800
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
