Theos-Talk Archives (December 1993 Message tl00110)

Paul Johnson

     Well referenced capsule biographies are useful also, if you
stay with the material and not drift into theorizing. What I had
in mind is that you compile and reprint some of the source
material, concerning contacts with the masters. Permissions
shouldn't be a problem as all of this is in public domain. I
think there would be a lot of interest in such a compilation.
Dan Caldwell's compilations of people's accounts of their
contacts with H.P.B. was in the back of my mind as a model for
what I was thinking.

     As you have recently learned from feedback on your first
book, some of your theories are about as pleasant for
Theosophists to hear as finger nails on a blackboard. I think a
compilation without theorizing would be more constructive for the
movement, in the long run.

     I'm glad you decided to leave Besant and Leadbeater in. I
think the 1907 cut off is a fair principle of inclusion. It
avoids a lot of unnecessary complications.

     Personally, As I have told you in person, I enjoyed reading
your original book, and found a lot of value in it, though I
disagreed with most of your conclusions, and feel (as others do)
that you had over reached the boundaries of good research. But
among theosophists, I'm in the minority in that I'm not very
inclined to get upset when someone proposes theories in
disagreement with mine.

     As I read your intention for this new book as described in
your answer to Terry Hobbes, I am a little concerned. I found
your article in Gnosis very problematical, and doubt if any
reasonable amount of revision will resolve the problems in it.
For example, your citation of the alleged order to Olcott to
forge Mahatma letters is a rather original reading of these
letters. Since the Mahatma Letters have been publicly available
since 1923, it is curious that you would be the first critic to
find such easily available evidence.

     I also have copies of the secret government documents that
you refer to and have read through them. Since these documents
concluded that there was no evidence against H.P.B., I find it
curious that you can find anything significant in them except
that British government was watching her. But I hardly found
that to be a revelation.

     But like you first book, my guess is that this one will be a
mixed bag, and I'm sure that I will enjoy this one too.

     I'm sorry to hear that Caldwell's published correspondence
with you was really private. However I would like to see you
publicly debate your positions--under fair conditions of course.

Eldon Tucker

     In a nutshell (and no doubt Paul will correct any
inaccuracies)  ISM argues that HPB's descriptions of the masters
were covers for their real identities. He argues that H.P.B's
Masters were not Tibetans or Punjabi Sikhs, but Sufis who where
known, and lived in India at the same time as H.P.B.

Arvind

     I looked over your last response, and see nothing that
requires a response from me at this time. I will be out of town
until next year, but if there is an opportunity, I might look in
on the board. Otherwise have a Happy Holiday, and in the mean
time, perhaps someone will find your psychological key and
prophesy.

     As for why some Theosophists don't like Bailey, I have a
theory on this, and may have the evidence to support it by the
time I get back. I don't think the objection has anything to do
with "astral channeling."  In fact, I don't think the real reason
has ever been published. More on this later.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins