Re: Theos-World To Jerry, on Pseudo Scholars
Mar 13, 2006 06:15 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Dear Carlos,
As I wrote in my previous post, I expect our posting to be in the form
of a dialogue. By dialogue, I mean that you make your point, I respond
to them, and then progress the conversation by making a couple of new
points of my own, based upon your response to mine. You then respond to
my points and progress the conversation by making a couple of new points
based upon my response to you. Ignoring my points and barraging me over
and over again with your same points which I already answered does not
make a conversation. I call this kind of post harassment. I frankly do
not have the time, energy or desire to communicate with anyone who
refuses to engage in a dialogue. When you decide to carefully read and
respond to what I wrote to you in my last two posts, I will be happy to
continue. Let me know when you are ready to stop harranging and start
dialogging. Otherwise, please don't bother to write to me any further.
Best regards,
Jerry
carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
