Theos-Talk Archives (August 2009 Message tt00189)

Dear Govert

My views are:

Let me first state, that I am not personally having any negative attitude towards K. Paul Johnson and any other person. What I am against is his promotion of hos theosophical books, especially "The Masters Revealed", and the attack this book clearly constitiutes towards HPB and the theosophical teachings. - I am just a theosophical Seeker, with a certain amount of knowledge about that the theosophical doctrines are true.

Govert, I understand it to be, that you are reffering to what you claim to be "ad hominem attacks" on my part towards K. Paul Johnson?

Yes. Maybe it was better to state what you offer in the below.

But please try to understand the following:
Such an attempt as "The Masters Revealed" have, as the below quote in mention on being "nasty" says, from its beginning as its aim to say, that we are not about to analyse whether the Masters exist or not - the conclusion has ALREADY been reached that they are not existing! Try to think about the fact that a person like A. O. Hume accepted the phenomenon and the masters, but later rejected the existence of the masters. And the fact, that the nothern India and the Himalayas, something on historical record, even today - are filled with legends about Masters of visdom. Try Mahatma Ghandi as an example.


I said the just about following to Sampsa (Aug. 12th) about two weeks ago here at Theos-talk answering the same on his "nasty"  starting point:
"Why would one like to create such a theory, when there are an abundance of evidence saying the opposite? 

- Damodar K. Mavalankar even said that Mahamta KH had a public office under the Panchen Lama. And we aught suddenly to think that all the Mahatma Letters was created by a theosophical network of conspirators, including Hübbe Schleidens - Mahatma Letters in a train as well as the Vega Package?
The thesis rest on no solid evidence at all. I claim, that In parts of nothern India - the Himalayan Masters are still a wellknown term, even if some would like it to disappear."


And another reason for stating it was, that K. Paul Johnson as far as I know, so far until today has not been willing to honestly and officially recognize that his hypothesis was a false one - despite it has been - clearly - proven to him. And the fact is that his books are still being sold - and promoted online by for instance googlebooks.com. And there are no attempt from K. Paul Johnson to create a revised second or third edition, no remorse, nothing. instead we experience that K. Paul Johnson like to casually refer to his theosophical books from time to time, always omitting to call them a "nasty" attack on HPB. - 
The truth is, that there are no reason to think, that the Himalayan Masters do not exist, just as there is no reason to believe in their existence before one has seen them. Yet, the amount of evidence in India are huge in saying that they exist. K. Paul Johnson cannot have overlooked this fact - unless he did it deliberately. And the theme of the book "The Masters Revealed" and its hypothesis deliberately has the starting point that they do not exist! - This is an attack on the theosophical teachings. ***Especially, when one says or at least insinuates that HPB either was hallucinating, being a hysterical woman, or a plain deliberate lair and a cheat! - And it is this false attempt I call "nasty". - What are your views Govert? Other readers?

And, when considering the scientific stance this book "The Maters Revealed" has - we aught to remember a number of scientists have rejected it as being not really scientifical at all. (It is good to know, that some scientists, know what science is.) And from a theosophical point of view it has succedeed in creating divisions among what we call theosophists. And now we - almost - witness that a cult has grow forth around these books accepting them as theosophical or at least within the range of theosophical activitiy. Well, that is the view one get, when experiencing that wellmeant criticism  of these book and their existence (seeking a defense of HPB and theosophical teachings) is disallowed at the forum named The Theosophical Network. - And This was also one of the reasons why this thread was started.

I do hope that some of you understand the seriousness of this issue?


Tray also the following to understand the nasty aim - and his reaction on being refused access to the Adyar archives:
"I have no problem with this additional "confession," since in fact HPB seems to me quite remarkable in having been a great impostor yet also having punctured her own self-created myth repeatedly. "
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/his/kp_john1.htm


This aught to tell you clearly what the aim is.


M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:12 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"


    Dear Morten, 

  Not much time on my side, but here one item:

  >"The theme of this book is that HPB's Masters were not the Himalayan sages whom she invented to distract her co-workers, but a large group of men and a few women who helped, encouraged, or collaborated with her, in a lifes work that was not only spiritual but socially idealistic and fiercely political."
  >
  >M. Sufilight says:
  >What a nasty statement. My view, is that If HPB had her say, this would have belonged in the trashcan with another pack of lies.

  Maybe better to state that he was mistaken, or that his statements are to the best of your knowledge not true. 

  Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 1:04 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"

  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]

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



  

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