Theos-Talk Archives (August 2009 Message tt00104)

Dear Sampsa and friends

My views are:

Please try to understand I am writing to help the theosophical cause along.
My intentions are wellmeaning. I might be found to be in error, yet others might as well.


1.
Sampsa wrote:
"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. "

M. Sufilight says:
Not at all. Try re-reading my previous e-mail to you. What I am saying is, that a whole lot, of prejudice and assumptions - and even a whole lot - to the extreme - are being thrown into H. P. Blavatsky's face seeking to picture her negatively, seeking to brand her a liar, a cheat, and what not. Putting her down with, that she fabricated the Mahatma Letters or that the Masters merely were fictions and mirages. That is what I am saying. - And I am saying that because of my own knowledge about the matter, (not assumptions), I am in disgreement about various kinds of these used negative assumptions. This is a serious issue. And K. Paul Johnson 's "theosophical books" are among the most prominent agendas behind this attack. To me this is a fact. They are, as I see it, almost on the level of "the Coulombs affair" in their attack on H. P. Blavatsky and the theosophical teachings.

I will at any time agree upon, that HPB had to conceal various issues about events taking place, even her own past activities. The last something she mentioned to A. P. Sinnett in letters to him, when he sought to write her biography. White "lies" are - sometimes - out of true compassion necessary to protect people from acting stupid. This is theosophical teaching - yet beginners do not always understand this.

HPB said:
"There were portions of the Secret science that for incalculable ages had to remain concealed from the profane gaze. But this was because to impart to the unprepared multitude secrets of such tremendous importance, was equivalent to giving a child a lighted candle in a powder magazine." (SD. vol. 1, p.xxxv )

Occultism is a serious business Sampsa. But I think you know this.

So certainly no "Christian harmonizing" here. Your mud-throwing(?) at me or assumptions about me courts failure Sampsa.

These are just my views.

- - -
2.
I am in clear agreement with updating a wide range of her teachings, article, and arguments - using more modern words without changing the essence of the teaching, but who are able enought to do this - and knows about Senzar and the 7 keys? One reason being that words through time change their meanings and their vibrations are perceived differently by the majority of readers or Seekers. So I am all ears on that.

I find that there is an interesting relation between the science of psychology used in present day society, countries and in corporate companies versus theosophical psychology OR occultism. For instance issues like brainwashing and de-conditioning. I believe this to be a very important issue these days.

But unjustified attacks, using a whole lot of negative assumptions about HPB to the extreme, and smearing her god name and reputation, I will always go against, as far as my knowledge goes.

These are just my views.

- - -
3.
Sampsa wrote:
"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."

M. Sufilight says:
According to what I have read of Mr. Reigle, he seems to me to be too much of a scholar to understand why HPB wrote like she did, and that she most often sought to create a synthesis teaching of the wisdom teachings of all ages. If she in London had written - officially - Clairvoyantly using books from Tibet, without physical access to ancient tibetan scriptures - she would as I see it have been against the occult doctrines and Karmic patterns in her time and humanity's level of knowledge. Today things have changed. The physical world is different. - And HPB sought from time to time to create a terminology, which scholars in her time could understand and relate to. No wonder, that great many scholars became theosophist in her time. Today, there are millions of terminologies, theories etc. - As I see it, today One requires a somewhat greater talent when seeking to create a synthesis of terminologies and teachings.

The use of  "poor western sources of her time" was also due to the Law of Karma. She was not allowed to reveal too much too early, - not even 100 years hence. Because the Masters are able to know about the future to a certain degree. (I know about this - yet I am not on their level. One can know about these issues without being on the level known.) - The Secret Doctrine was certainly not only using "poor western sources", and I think you will agree with me on that?  And the Voice of Silence? And Mabel Collins: "Light on the Path?"
I think it is a fact, that she in her writings mixed her clairvoyant science with ordinary science in her time.

Please try to understand that ordinary science has its limitations. Whereas clairvoyant sciences (not assumptions) has no limitations.

Yet, these are just my views.

- - -
4.
Sampsa wrote:
"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."

M. Sufilight says:
Let us have some examples on this, I am willing to listen to facts about the matter. What "we know", (to use your words) is perhaps only what western (Christian?) scholars and average Lamas know, and not what the esoteric circles of Himalaya knows?
- - -

The trouble about the Mahatma Letters was and is, that they operated on a level higher than the dead letter readings - the last is sadly extremely often attributed to them by all kinds of shcolars and betterknowing beginner-seekers etc. etc. Dead-letter reading is of small value to the theosophists or initiated. (HPB mentioned this in the Secret Doctrine).

These are just my views.

- - -
5.
Sampsa wrote:
"You don't seem to notice that K. Paul Johnson says that he respects many Theosophical principles in spite of authenticity of the Masters."

M. Sufilight says:
I have noticed it. But, I have also notices, that K. Paul Johnson recently have raised his voice against the doctrine of reincarnation just to exchange it with another dogma, which is less likely to create a universal brotherhood and anykind of justification for how life as such operates. - More so, he keeps recommending - his "theosophically" related books and especially "The Masters Revealed"- (instead of clearly openly and honestly rejecting them - or - creating an honest compassionate second edition or two!) . - But I might be mistaken in my view.

These are just my views.

- - -
6.
Sampsa wrote:
"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."

M. Sufilight says:
Let me tell you, that because of your words and others words about me - I clearly perceive - that a number of persons ASSUME, that I have anything personal against K. Paul Johnson.

Let be once and for state: 
I have never had anything personal against K. Paul Johnson, although he and others might perceive it to be so, based on nothing but negative assumptions. What I am against is the attacks his "theosophical" books contain, and the smearing of HPB's good name and reputation they continously radiates with their non-objective rays. And I am against a claimed theosophist selling them not knowing what damage he creates, and I would like other theosophists to more clearly understand this. And I would like out of compassion that K. Paul Johnson understand this. So not personal agression is involved here. Not at all. This is also the reason behind these e-mails in this thread. 

Now I read that he seeks to make us believe that he endorses - most - of the theosophical teachings. Which ones are he against, may I ask?

- I can only encourage the readers not to take this issue lightly. Please reconsider your stance, and try to understand why I with my previous e-mail to Sampsa have to keep my distance to these books. Will you do that?

Because K. Paul Johnson seem to totally ignore how much damage his books have created. He appears to be unwilling to listen to criticism, and yet he calls himself a theosophist. This is saddening.

These are just my views.

- - -
7.
To Sampsa:
Thank for agreeing with me about the moderators being to sensitive.
And saying that I was being too personal towards K. Paul Johnson only happened through me asking him a simple question. An emotional reaction followed. Later in my post to Katinka, I might have been going too far in my use of words, and I am sad about that. And an excuse aught to be given for this. Yet, I am in all honesty seeking to help  K. Paul Johnson to understand the importance of ending any continuous sales of his damaging "theosophical" books and his self-promoted parading as a theosophical author. - . Would you not reconsider nurturing what you perceive to be - one of the most venomous snakes - within any theosophical library, and even forum or Section? 

And instead of answering my wellmeant question, - He attacked me. And he did it because I told him, by asking a simple question, that his words might be perceived in a quite opposite manner than he claimed he himself intended with them. Especially because he is known as the author of the Masters Revealed and another "theosophical" book. That is how I perceive the situation. - Misunderstandings occurs when we e-mail at forums and in physical life, let us admit this. (I have read  K. Paul Johnson latest post in the 'cult factors of religions' tread. And understand that he intended his words to be understood differently than I - with good reason I dear say - perceived them.)

Now he tell us that he "personally" has not sold his books for the last TEN years.
Do you believe him? Anyone?
If true, I will perhaps have to retract some of my statements.
Amazon.com says something else, when we consider the word "directly" allowing them being sold.

- - -

To call The Great White Brotherhood or the White Lodge a mere MYTH as K. Paul Johnson promotes in the title of his "Masters Revealed" - instead of calling it a FACT  is certainly no doubt to show ones fist towards the Himalayan Masters!
I have to disagree with such a title and also the content of that book.

I hate to be against a persons activities and books he most likely has use much time on writing. But I too have my limits. I have in fact tolerate this issue for some years now, and observed K. Paul Johnson emails, and his echanges with other opponents and staunch admires (som of them even calling themselves theosophists) of his teachings


These are just my views.



M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sampsakuukasjarvi 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:06 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"


    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



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]