Re: Theos-World To Jerry, on Pseudo Scholars
Mar 14, 2006 04:39 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Dear Cass,
Let us say, for argument's sake, that HPB, had reasons unknown to us, but obviously affirmed by the Masters, to preserve their identity and whereabouts as "persona non gratis",while at the same time needing to acknowledge that the universal wisdom was directed and dictated by those same beings. What a task for anyone!
That appears to be just the case, in my opinion.
Has any scholar of theosophy discovered a "lie" within the works given to the world, i.e. Isis and SD?
There is a lot of controversy about the accuracy and source of HPB's
information. That is to be expected.
Isn't this the cogent point?
Why?
AS far as the bun fight over Tacoma etc, my humble and non scholastic attitude is that the Poparisation of the TS is continuing and will polarise the society out of credible existence, as is the case in the rise and fall of the catholic church.
The way I like to express it is that the Theosophical Organizations are
bound hand and foot by their own karma. I see the polarization as the
outcome of that karma.
Best,
Jerry
Cass Silva wrote:
Let us say, for argument's sake, that HPB, had reasons unknown to us, but obviously affirmed by the Masters, to preserve their identity and whereabouts as "persona non gratis", while at the same time needing to acknowledge that the universal wisdom was directed and dictated by those same beings. What a task for anyone!
Has any scholar of theosophy discovered a "lie" within the works given to the world, i.e. Isis and SD?
Isn't this the cogent point?
AS far as the bun fight over Tacoma etc, my humble and non scholastic attitude is that the Poparisation of the TS is continuing and will polarise the society out of credible existence, as is the case in the rise and fall of the catholic church.
No matter, the horse has already bolted, and the rider free at last from all the petty struggles brought about my men who may believe their crusade is based on moral integrity, laughable.
Christianity has been arguing for 2000 years about its claim as the one true religion, so those in what they consider powerful positions will be kept employed for many years to come, kicking up the dust.
Cass
carlosaveline cardoso aveline <carlosaveline@hotmail.com> 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
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
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.
=== message truncated ===
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
