Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00657)

Jerry,

Thanks for you interesting posting.

You say:

"I  expected in your reply below to either supply quotes where Paul did 
indeed make such statements, and/or to comment upon my discourse. Instead, 
you come up with a quote where
Paul uses the word "charlatans" in connection to HPB and Gurdjieff.  Now, 
liar and charlatan are two very different words with different meanings."

I say:

My point, Jerry,  is that Paul Johnson says that HPB lies or is a charlatan. 
The two words are applied to false persons.  If you believe charlatans do 
not lie, well, my friend! It sounds like that difference between "innocent" 
and "not guilty". (By the way, Brazilian tribunals use the word "innocent" 
instead of "not guilty").

The issue is that Paul says, implies and suggests that HPB was not truthful 
or reliable. We may all  use the words we prefer for that. There are plenty 
of them.  The meaning is the same, though.

Besides, my point is NOT that Paul openly and firmly states HPB is a  fraud. 
He follows Algeo's line. He suggests this is "a possibility among others".

This kind of action  is one of the most efficient forms of active slander. 
This is a form of slander in which the slander tries to avoid being caught 
as such.  This has been used in Adyar TS  since the false accusations 
against Judge in the 1890s.

When asked to clarify his position with regard to HPB's honesty (which 
should be no big deal!),   Paul, the Historian, refuses to to so, and gets 
away from the debate, using the  mask of a person with  offended  
sensitivities.

Is this emotionalistic  show a "scholarly attitude"?  Not at all.

It is well-known,  Jerry,  that authentic scholars and researchers do NOT 
get away when their thesis are confronted.

Just the opposite. They take every opportunity to clarify their facts,  to 
defend and to IMPROVE their viewpoints.

Only historians who are benefitting from authoritarian political structures 
will get nervous and bitter and reject clarifying their views.  Now, Adyar 
TS structure, as you may know, is not too open-minded...

So this is the kind of "Historian" some Adyar leaders (not Ms. Radha 
Burnier) need,  in order to avoid facing the consequences of  Leadbeater's 
biography written by Gregory Tillett -- and other publications which show 
20th century pseudo-theosophy as it is.

Radha Burnier  runs an authoritarian structure, to my view -- yes.

But she clearly disapproves the gossiping/libeling  policy about HPB,  and 
she will never -- as long as I know -- defend CW Leadbeater's clairvoyance 
and fancies.  I hope you understand I am looking at the context,  in order 
to understand the specific facts.

I am sorry if I did not discuss every point in your message below. I hope I 
addressed the main issues, though.   Let me know if I did not.

Thank you very much for your openess of mind.


Best regards,  Carlos.






> From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@charter.net>
> Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World To Carlos Cardoso Aveline--some thoughts and a reply
> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:01:10 -0800
>
> Dear Carlos,
>
> I changed your subject heading out of respect for Paul, who has stated
> on several occasions that he does not like his name displayed in subject
> headings.  It is just a matter of respecting the preferences of
> others.   I replaced the heading with your name, which, of course, you
> are free and welcome to change.
>
> Because of my busy schedule, I have become more selective concerning
> which postings I read and which I reply to.  I try to reply to those
> posts which I feel that I can make a constructive contribution to the
> writer and/or interested readers.  To properly do this, I have to take
> the time to read (sometimes several times) the post, consider what they
> are saying (and implying), and then formulate an answer which I hope
> will move the topic along. This takes time.  But I believe that these
> kind of posts raises the overall quality of a discussion board and is
> helpful to others.  On the other hand, to argue for the sake of argument
> is, for me, a waste of energy and time.  It is my hope that my
> correspondents take the same time and consideration to reply to my
> messages to them.  Now, regarding our discussion.
>
> My last response to you was concerning your statement that Paul wrote
> that HPB "lied."  Here again is the statement you made, which I replied:
>
> >>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 replied that I did not recall Paul writing that HPB lied.  I then went
> into a carefully considered discourse about HPB's style of communication
> and how it is so often misunderstood.  I expected in your reply below to
> either supply quotes where Paul did indeed make such statements, and/or
> to comment upon my discourse. Instead, you come up with a quote where
> Paul uses the word "charlatans" in connection to HPB and Gurdjieff.
> Now, liar and charlatan are two very different words with different
> meanings.  My Webster's Dictionary defines the word in part: "one who
> prates much in his own favor, and makes unwarranted pretensions..."
> This definition seems to fit well the quote you gave me below.  It does
> not necessarily imply lying, but only self-promotion.  At any rate, this
> is an entirely different discussion.  If this is your method of
> discussion, that is, shifting the terms of the discussion with new
> arguments instead of responding to my discourse, then I must reply by
> saying that I frankly cannot afford the time, nor do I have an
> inclination to play this kind of game.  With this said, I will assume
> that you misunderstood and will more carefully re-read my last. In the
> mean time, I will respond to your statements below:
>
> I re-read the 1987 Theosophical History Pamphlet and noted the quotes
> given below.  Your sentence fragment  "had fraudulent aspects" Appears
> once on page three. In context, the quote reads:
>
> "The Sufi doctrine of instrumental teaching demonstrates a possible
> explanation of the apparently 'outrageous' and 'fraudulent" aspects of
> H.P.B. and Gurdjieff." He then goes on to explain what the Sufi doctrine
> of instrumental teaching is.  Note that Paul had put "outrageous" and
> "fraudulent" in quotes.  That means that he is quoting someone elses'
> use of the terms.  Also, the qualifier "apparently" indicates that
> whoever he is quoting, is not saying that aspects of H.P.B.'s and
> Gurdjieff's  methods appear to be fraudulent.  Also, the main sense of
> the paragraph, if you read it in its entirety, is to explain the
> doctrine of instrumental teaching, which Paul is suggesting that H.P.B.
> and Gurdjieff may have employed.  If they did, then that would mean that
> what appears to be outrageous and fraudulent is not so after all.
>
>
> The quote you cite on page seven is part of Paul's concluding
> paragraphs.  Here, he is naming several possible conclusions one can
> make about H.P.B. and Gurdjieff. To paraphrase the ideas: 1) that Both
> may have been Charlatans with Gurdjieff exploiting what HPB
> accomplished. 2) That H.P.B. was genuine and Gurdjieff not. 3) That
> Gurdjieff was sent to correct mistakes H.P.B. made 4) Both H.P.B. and
> Gurdjieff were genuine.  Paul does not, in his conclusion offer an
> opinion as to which, if any of those possibilities are correct.
>
> >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.)
> >
> Carlos, you have to keep in mind that this article was submitted as a
> scholarly paper.  What you want Paul to write is an Hagiography or an
> Apologia.  Those kinds of discourse are not suitable for scholarly
> writing.   I can say that I have known Paul since 1984 and know for a
> fact that he does indeed admire HPB.
>
> >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.
> >
> I think that we all are ignorant at different levels.  Yet for one
> person to call another ignorant, reeks of arrogance to my nose.
>
> >See the 'Doctrine
> >of the Eye' versus the 'Doctrine of the Heart' in  "The Voice of the
> >Silence".
> >
> I have been studying HPB's writings for 43 years and teaching them for
> almost thirty years.  I think I understand to eye and heart doctrines
> well enough.
>
> >g a4) As to HPB bein 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.
> >
> Benito Mussolini was born July 29, 18883.  That makes him a Leo too.
> What do you think of him?
>
> > directly opposite to the sometimes
> >unstable, anxious and astute Scorpio (while Scorpio as a sign also has 
> very
> >good qualities, of course).
> >
> Actually, Leo is opposite Aquarius.
>
> >HPB  was Cancer in her ascendant -- a
> >personality strongly emotional, sincere, loving, direct, sensitive, open,
> >compassionate, sometimes too vulnerable -- and uncapable of deceiving.
> >
> Yasser Arafat had cancer rising. He didn't seem to be overly sensitive
> about the people he killed to get to the position he was in.
>
> >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.
> >
> Truman Capote had moon in Libra.  He wrote "In Cold Blood."
>
> >Those who attack her  personal,
> >Lion/Cancer/Libra honesty and openess, are attacking the essential 
> ethical
> >basis of her philosophy.
> >
> Mere planetary placements alone are not going to tell you much about a
> person.  I suggest that you leave astrology to the astrologers.
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
> Actually, second hand evidence. It is a biography.
>
> >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.
> >
> Boris de Zirkoff deserves credit for pulling together most of the
> letters we have.  He also corrected the many mistakes in the Biography.
> See the chronologies in the Blavatsky Collected Works, which he spent 50
> years compiling.
>
> >6) As to the absence of data about HPB's life, there are two points I 
> want
> >to make.
> >
> I don't wish to get into a discussion about your notions of the
> esotericism of St. Germain, Carlos Castaneda etc.  Rather, HPB simply
> stated that her private life before she became a public person is none
> of the public's business.  Most public people fell that way, whether
> they are an occultist, actor, or astronaut.
>
> >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.
> >
> I hope that the misreadings I have pointed out to you will help you to
> put aside your former conclusions, carefully re-read Paul's writings and
> re-evaluate them.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jerry
>
>
> carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
>
> >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".
> >
> >g a4) As to HPB bein 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
_________________________________________________________________
Seja um dos primeiros a testar o novo Windows Live Mail Beta.Acesse 
http://www.ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d