Theos-Talk Archives (August 2009 Message tt00179)

Dear Govert and friends

My views are:

Govert wrote:
"Lastly, for the sake of civility, I have to protest your depiction of Paul as a liar of sorts because he doesn't see and/or belief what you see/belief. Some rhetoric is fine, but ad hominem attacks are not. "

M. Sufilight
I ask: 
1) In what sense have I formulated myself wrongly towards Paul and the book "The Masters Revealed"? 

2) What kind of "ad hominem attacks" have I thrown?
Govert, Please provide some examples instead of you attacking me.

3) Is it not true, that I have simply sought to defend the theosophical teachings and H. P. Blavatsky's reputation and honesty against her being called a liar and a cheat by Paul in the book The Masters Revealed?

4) Is it so, that because I (and theosophically speaking strangly enough almost alone) seek to defend H. P. Blavatsky and the theosophical teachings - some persons with a more or less philosophical "ax to grind" accuse me of "ad hominem attacks" on Paul?

- - -
Anyone on the forum?


M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 5:03 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"


    Dear Morten,

  We'll have to pick this up later. I'll be off-line more or less for a month. 

  A few little remarks though: The plausibility of a theory is different from its being proven true or false. Paul might have had enough circumstantial evidence from which the theory might have suggested itself. The next step is the testing, which is different from the process of theory-formation. Also, from a believer's pov Paul's theory might have come as a surprise, even shock, and strong psychological reactions might kick in. For academics who are skeptical of paranormal phenomena Paul's theory might have looked very plausible as they are predisposed to prefer a non-paranormal explanation above a paranormal one. Also, theories are not set in stone from the beginning. As new relevant facts surface the theory can be adjusted. In Paul's case, and I'm not sure if it went like that, the 'strong' initial theory would be a 1-on-1 correlation between HPB's Masters and real historical persons, but, as that did not entirely pan out, a 'weaker' theory might suggest itself and that would be that the Masters are complex composites of real persons with fictitious elements added not unlike the literary modus operandus of the French writer Marcel Proust. Again such theory can be put to the test and see what comes out. Meanwhile, as a believer, I do belief in the Masters, but as an amateur investigator I have not come to a firm conclusion regarding Paul's work nor about the proposed refutations and counter-theories. Lastly, for the sake of civility, I have to protest your depiction of Paul as a liar of sorts because he doesn't see and/or belief what you see/belief. Some rhetoric is fine, but ad hominem attacks are not. 

  Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:51 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"

  Dear Govert and friends

  My views are:

  Yes, perhaps.

  Let us keep in mind, that My motives are wellmeaning - and in done in a defence of H. P. Blavatsky's name, work, and reputation. Accusing me of the opposite aught to be based on something else than prejudice.

  - - -

  Govert wrote:
  "His hypothesis was plausible and had to be pursued. For many the evaluation of the results might be still an open question."

  M. Sufilight says:
  1.
  >Not this hypothesis was not plausible. And I think I have shown why I do not think so in recent e-mails about this issue. And others have also through examples shown it. The hypothesis (on the Master Morya and KH being respectively Ranbir Singh and Tahkur Singh, or mere fictious HPB creations) was not plausible at all, if one makes a through research in the official and even the online available material today. This I say with The Blavatsky's Collected Writings and HPB's letters to A. P. Sinnett included. - To me it is almost like when the Christians or historians today label theosophy a belief system. And all theosophist, know that It is not so. 

  There are no dogmas within theosophical teachings. And if not only using knowledge, we use hypothesises. The theosophical teachings are a search after the truth about life through a - knowledge - about it, and not a required (one-way-only) belief about it. Theosophical teachings do certainly not mind hypothesises, provided that they are not constituting an attack on the truth about life, and truth as such, - and provided that they do not seek to denigrate facts and theosophical knowledge while being based on lies or smearing of HPB and others. 

  Yet, when truth is proven, one aught to recognize it. If not, I can only gather than one either deliberately are operating through another agenda than theosophy and against the aim of creating a Universal Brotherhood. It is precisely that last issue, where the book "The Masters Revealed" courts failure in its content.
  Because, it has as the premise that H. P. Blavatsky was ignorant and a lair - and at the same time based this view on extremely shallow ground, as well as clearly insufficient references, and a number of mere negative assertions about who H. P Blavatsky was. And when it is criticized, silence is the answer or accusations about that one is attacking the author or the books - with no understanding of that one is seeking to defend the theosophical teachings and H. P. Blavatsky honesty, out of compassion. - All this has certain ugly parallels to the time, when the member of the Soceity of Psychical Research named Richard Hodgson created his famous report and attack on HPB in 1884-5.

  If such a hypothesis had to be sought at all costs, what, if I may ask, will be the nest hypothesis one will fancy to throw into the head of the Old Lady - H. P. Blavatsky? Govert?

  2.
  >If the evaluation of the results are open it might be due to the fact that The Theosophical Network and others seeks to supress the truth about it. Just like K. Paul Johnson himself.

  I know, that my words are tough to read to some persons. But, I think there have been given enough facts showing that the book "The Masters Revealed" is way out of line.
  Yet, I am always a willing listner. I am certainly not seeking to prevent people from defending their honest - TRUTHSEEKING - views.

  And let us keep in mind, that I wrote this not to hurt anyone, - but simply because I am seeking to help certain persons to understand that they are mistaken in their views about various important issues in this affair. My motives are wellmeaning - and in done in a defence of H. P. Blavatsky's name, work, and reputation. Some persons are to some of us occasionally in communication with her beind some of the veiled curtains of ignorance.

  Please do understand, that I mean no harm. I am just seeking to defend H. P. Blavatsky and the theosophical teachings of all ages past.

  The Mahatmas are real. Some of us know about it.

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:08 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"

  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]

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

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



  

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