Theos-Talk Archives (August 2009 Message tt00090)

Thank you, Morten, for your clarifications.

You asked why I say that maybe you are a "too enthuasistic follower of Blavatsky". Btw, I don't mean to slander you.

My impression on you is derived from your messages, where you don't seem to accept criticism towards HPB's writings. You don't admit that her writings contain some controversies, compared to e.g. science or Buddhism. You, in my interpretation, say, at least indirectly, that the controversies are only apparent and that the problem is always in ignorant readers, never in writings themselves. This reminds me of Christian "harmonizing" of the scriptures, where there is never admitted any controversies or untrue things in the Bible. You certainly don't do this with purpose. I have noticed that you don't like ordinary, exoteric Christianity.

You often also give long quotes by HPB. Sometimes I think it is very, very good, because we must not forget our great Madame! Sometimes I think all those old writings of her are not always relevant and that we should update them.

My understanding on HPB's ignorance of Tibet is based on some articles of history science. For example, David Reigle shows how HPB quotes poor western sources of her time as "Mahatmic announcements" or "secret Buddhist tradition". Reigle, of course, is not critical towards Blavatsky; he emphasizes that HPB knew the genuine Bodhisattva ideal.

It is very true that Theosophy is not Buddhism, but sometimes HPB PRESENTS some doctrines and cultural facts as actual Buddhism. Today we know well that all those things don't belong to Buddhism at all.

I think it is true like you say that sometimes the chelas may have made mistakes when they have received messages. See, I accept in general that it is possible to receive letters from Mahatmas. I believe we just don't always know what the truth is. I surely don't have only negative assumptions. I also agree with you that Masters are a good hypothesis.

It is good that you defend Blavatsky and Theosophy, but maybe you sometimes think too dualistically. You don't seem to notice that K. Paul Johnson says that he respects many Theosophical principles in spite of authenticity of the Masters.

Maybe Paul Johnson thinks that he knows whole truth. This of course can't be true. I agree with you that scholars don't reach all theosophical phenomena. And I don't think that HPB was interested in politics, unlike what Johnson says.

We may criticize Johnson's views, if it is not personal. I think we should take science into account, also when it disagrees with Theosophy, because it is possible that Theosophy contains myths. However, eventually everybody determines his or her world-view through heart, not through head.

I mentioned the theory about the Masters being real Mahatmas but not living in Tibet because it is a concept which is not presented by traditional Theosophy nor K. Paul Johnson.

Maybe I missed some points, I don't' know. I do notice that in my previous I didn't comment on the warning that you got on the Theosophical Network. My comment is: you said there something too personal against Paul Johnson, but the moderators were too sensitive. I don't think you deserved the warning! Sorry to hear that you left that forum.

All the best,

Sampsa