Theos-Talk Archives (August 2009 Message tt00148)

Dear Morten and friends,

Maybe some participants in the discussion around Paul's work have taken statements and counter-statements at a level which is too personal, possibly Paul included. 

It is very hard to assess if a statement is made with any negative intent. People tend to jump to conclusions about others' intentions, especially when their own sacred cow is being put up for questioning. 

As far as I am concerned, I am very grateful that Paul put all that time, money and energy into his writings to figure out for himself--and in doing so also on behalf of others--the truth about the Masters. His hypothesis was plausible and had to be pursued. For many the evaluation of the results might be still an open question. For others the writings of Pratt, Caldwell and Algeo were sufficient to refute Paul. I'm also grateful they put in all the time, etc. to do that, as in the whole process a lot of other interesting facts and ideas came to the fore. 

When was the last time any of us tried to check independently any of the ideas which comprise the Theosophical worldview? 

I did not find in any of the major documents in this discussion any reason to think there was any bad intent or deliberate misleading. There was some rhetoric, but that's fine. And there are some sensitive over-reactions, and I think those can be reigned in, voluntarily that is, not through censorship or harassment. I'm sorry to read that some feel not welcome as some discussions heat up. 

Discussions might be more productive if we have a better sense of our own limitations, confusions and ignorance, especially in the realm of the proper use of our intellect in navigating this potent mix of truth and faith, science and revelation, proof and rhetoric, which Theosophy is. 

Govert



. 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:47 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"


    I agree on all this.
  Sure, ordinary Science is ordinary science, but when an author call it theosophy, and tends to picture most theosophists as aggressive, I will have to disagree. Especially, when the content of important parts of the authors litterary output to such a degree - either conscious or unconscious is a nasty unjustified attack on H. P. Blavatsky and the theoosphical teachings. And when it is something already proven by others as you say.

  When people parade as theosophical authors or promoters and fail to recognize the truth when it is proven to them - how on earth can they honestly claim to aim at creating a universal brotherhood when being a member of the forum Theosophical Network? That baffles me. On top of that some appearntly - special members - are disallowed being criticized.

  If all authors at a theosophical group are allowed to claim they are theosophical no matter what kind of smearing and blunt lies they perform, where will such a theosophical group lead humanity?

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sampsakuukasjarvi 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:11 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"

  I neither have time to write more about this case. Morten, I think you have good points, and many people agree with you that some of K. Paul Johnson's conclusions are too daring. Daniel and Govert, for example, have written well, supporting you. Just remember that science can't uncritically assume that all statements about the Masters in theosophical literature are automatically true. Historians have the right to speculate on more rational and more human reasons for events.

  Sampsa

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
  >
  > to be honest Morten I have better ways of spending my time than labouring over what and who said what and when. If the works of HPB had been found in a jar in a cave it wouldn't have altered my perception and I believe that KH, M and HPB would have the attitude of 'take it or leave it'
  > 
  > Cass
  > 

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



  

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