Theos-Talk Archives (May 1994 Message tl00052)

Paul Johnson

     Sorry, I have been buried under three research papers, all due
in five days, and now I'm treating myself to a break by going back
and trying to answer some of your past messages:

April 27th:

PJ> The travels you describe inspire envy.  I've been to Gila and
> Aztec ruins in NM and Betatakin in AZ and would like to do the
> rest.  Have done Yucatan, though, which has a completely
> different feel.  I think the Anasazi spirituality is a lot more
> compelling/uplifting.  In Mexico, surprisingly, it was the
> Catholic churches rather than the preColumbian stuff that
> conveyed that feeling to me.
>
> Did you do anything else in Brittany, like Carnac?

     Yes, I visited Carnac.  The French Government has it all
fenced off now and no one is allowed to walk among the stones.  I
was told that too many people were writing graffiti on them.  While
my "host" drove me around the country side, we passed many more
sites filled with standing stones.  There are thousands of them
around that area where one can still walk.  It is stunning to think
of all of the engineering skills, time and energy it took to set
these up.

     Speaking of churches, if you ever get to Los Angeles, there is
a Greek Orthodox Church on Normandie near Beverly that is a
miniature of the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.  The inside is filled
with stained glass windows and breathtaking icons.  No expense was
spared on this one.  The gold on the icons is really gold.  It is
well worth seeing.  I understand that they give tours to the public
on Saturdays.  The Church is called Saint Sophia.  By the way, Lina
Psaltis used to teach Sunday School there.

May 13th:

PJ>Any stories about her, her colleague Basil Crump or son Gordon,
>that I won't have found in standard sources are most welcome.
>
>Jerry H-E, I bet you know a lot about this one.
>
>Also any comments about Cleather's historical significance are
>invited.

     I doubt if I have anything you haven't already heard.  You
might get in touch with Ted Davy or Ernie Pelletier.  They knew
Michael Freedman and have some good oral history on Cleather.

     What I like about Cleather was that she didn't conform herself
to any party line, but came to her own conclusions.  No body uses
her because she has points of disagreement with everybody.  Adyar
doesn't want her because she rejected Leadbeater.  Pasadena doesn't
want her because she rejected Tingley.  U.L.T. doesn't want her
because she says that Judge was duped.  Yet she was a member of
H.P.B.'s inner group, and was in a position to know more than most
as to what was going on.

     Concerning your May 14th upload of Mark's book review:

     For a person who doesn't know you, It is pretty obvious that
he is operating on a lot of assumptions.  For what it is worth, you
are not the first person to have been attacked by him.

     I far as my own opinion on your first book, I already stated
that some time ago.  I think the book is worthwhile reading.  I
didn't agree with all of your conclusions, but I also learned a lot
that I didn't already know.  I look forward to rereading your book
over the Summer.  I also look forward to reading your new
book.

May 17th:

PJ> Last Sunday I spoke to the Baltimore TS on the chela Babaji,
> and was pleased with the lodge's reception of my research and
> thoughts.  There were lots of good questions, and one, at the
> end, that really made me stop and think.  I'd like to know how
> others of you would have responded.  Boris Orszula said "it's
> clear that in your investigations you are seeking the truth,
> whatever it may turn out to be, and try to be strictly
> objective in determining what is credible and what is not.
> What then, after all these years of research, do you still find
> to be worthwhile in the contemporary Theosophical movement, and
> what do you reject?" (Paraphrase)
>
>  But beneath the question lies an issue which Brenda's kind
> message also brings to the foreground-- "how do you feel about
> the fact that your research is destructive of people's belief
> systems, and what do you think is left standing in the
> aftermath of the destruction?"

     Wow! What a wonderful question!  You had a thoughtful and
attentive audience.  What a rare event.

     I think that what is underlying both Boris and Brenda's
questions are a matter of values.  Which is the highest value:
loyalty or truth?

     When loyalty is perceived as the highest value, truth takes a
back seat.  New information that may compromise their loyalty is
suppressed, sometimes destroyed.  I have met people who have
proudly destroyed historical documents that would have thrown their
heros into a bad light, or would have revealed information about
them that they did not want known because it would have raised
further inquiry.  For these people, the Mahatmas must be exactly as
they were taught to believe.  For many, Mahatmas have been raised
to a super human status, far beyond what these teachers ever
claimed for themselves.  Members loyal to the Mahatmas as portrayed
by T.S. literature are no more willing to take seriously any
contradictory historical information on the Mahatmas, than a loyal
Christian would be willing to seriously consider the Jewish
historical records of Jesus as an illegitimate son of a Roman
soldier.  The Jews suffered centuries of persecution by Christian
authorities over their historical records and finally had to
expunge them about 300 years ago.  If truth was the highest value,
then these records would have been brought out and become the
subject of a lively debate, and everyone would have been changed by
them.  When loyalty is the highest value, the preservation of the
institution and one's belief system are of greatest importance.

     Remember my past discussions concerning C.W.L.?  When he made
his confessions in that board room full of T.S. General Secretaries
in 1906, their greatest concern was how to get this man out of the
Society without calling public attention to him.  The offenses he
admitted to (I'm not talking about giving advice on masturbation
here) would have given him a very long jail sentence if he were
testifying to the English or American Police.  But, once again, the
highest value was loyalty.  It was the value of Loyalty to the
preservation of the T.S. that guided Olcott's decision to accept
his resignation and not make anything public.  I wonder what
decision Olcott would have made if it were his own children that
were the victims?  Out of loyalty to his family, he might have seen
things differently.
     Now this makes for a problem for those who hold truth as the
highest value.  New truths change what we believe and how we see
ourselves.  New truths can make our heros into human beings again--
sometimes not very good ones either.  Those of us who do research
into theosophical history must decide whether an unwelcome truth
should be made public or not. This partly depends on whether the
researcher takes a deontological or a utilitarian approach.  A
utilitarian will ask what are the costs.  Is a new truth worth
causing discomfort among those who value loyalty over truth?  Is it
worth compromising the dignity of a hero in the name of truth?  Is
it worth the hate mail, and being demeaned because you dared to
speak the truth?  Paul, what Theosophical Organization publishes
your research?  None--right?  Your only theosophical source is
through an independent academic magazine ~Theosophical History.~
Anything else you do has to be published through presses whose
concerns are not primarily theosophical.  There is a reason why no
publisher loyal to a theosophical organization will touch your
research, but an independent publisher who is primarily interested
in good research will.  In this case, the bottom line for the
Organizations is who will determine what is true for the
membership.

     For an Organization, loyalty is more important than truth.
For Theosophical Organizations, this is ironic because H.P.B. and
her teachers tried to set up an Organization whose highest virtue
is truth.  That ideal lasted until about 1885 when Olcott decided
that it was in the best interest of the Organization that HPB leave
Adyar and not defend herself against the Coulomb slanders.  The
truth of her innocence or guilt was a secondary issue for him.
Once again, loyalty to the Organization won over truth.  In this
light, HPB's comment that Olcott saved the boy of the Organization
and lost its soul has new meaning here.

     A utilitarian whose highest value is truth will measure the
losses against the gains.  "What are the benefits; what are the
losses?" "Will anything change if I make this public?"  "What will
happen to me?"  "If I let this one out, will they stop publishing
my writings, thus loosing all future opportunities to share my
discoveries?"  "Perhaps it would be better to wait for a more
opportune time when I would suffer less losses."

     A deontologist on the other hand, will act upon principle.
"The truth should be known."  "Our Organization was founded on
truth, so I should speak the truth as a matter of principle,
regardless of how it will be received."  "Truth, should be more
important than loyalty."
     Needless to say, I have been primarly a deontologist all of my
life, and I believe that you probably fall into that category also.
The trouble with deontologists is that in the end they either
become regarded as "trouble makers," or "martyrs to a cause."
Either way, they are never acknowledged for their accomplishments
until after they are dead--if at all.

     Here is how I would have answered Boris' question:

     I find truth to be the primary value of the T.M. that I find
worthwhile.  For me, truth is the most important value, whether
that value is held by the membership of the theosophical
organizations or not.  This primary value demands that the T.S. is
to be a body of truth seekers.  I choose to uphold that value and
try to make a positive contribution to the T.M. through its
exercise.  Those who find painful the publication of ideas that are
contrary to their own, must learn to take responsibility for their
own feelings.  I am not the source of their pain.  Their discomfort
comes from a higher, more knowing part of themselves, because our
lower selves have become attached to ideas.  Attachment to ideas
blind us from the recognition of other ideas that might deepen our
understanding.  If someone's belief system is destroyed by new
information, I see that as a wonderful opportunity for spiritual
growth.  It is an opportunity to re-evaluate one's beliefs and
discard those that no longer work in light of the new information.
I see my contribution to the T.M. as trying to bring light to those
places of darkness through my own pursuit of truth.  If unexpected,
ugly or unpleasant things lurk in those shadows, it is better to
bring them out than to pretend that they don't exist.  We can learn
by them.
     I think this addresses both Boris' and Brenda's questions.

Peace

Jerry Hejka-Ekins