Re: P. Johnson's 2 SUNY books on the Theosophical Masters, Part II
Oct 15, 1995 01:24 PM
This is my opinion as well, that Paul Johnson feels "A bad identification is
better than no identification."
We should not be looking merely for OTHER historical personages who might
have been the "real" Mahatmas, but also for counter-evidence that ANY known
historical personages were the Mahatmas.
HPB and Col. Olcott both assert that the Masters assiduously closed the doors
to any discovery of Their personal identities, because it would interfere
with their work and only lead to hero-worship or devil-hunting.
If there were fairly solid evidence that Master so-and-so was really this
particular historical person, that would be interesting. Open-minded
Theosophists do not discredit the possibility that more might be learned
about the Mahatmas, nor that they did in fact live in flesh and blood bodies,
eat, sleep, travel, etc. But Johnson should have emphasized MUCH MORE
STRONGLY that the people he brought forward as candidates for the masters
were HYPOTHESES, and not derive conclusions (such as HPB's primary motive for
concealing their identity was POLITICAL) from hypotheses.
In fact, I tend to agree with Daniel Caldwell that 90% tp 95% of the evidence
stacks up AGAINST Paul Johnson's "Mahatma-candidates" and therefore those
candidates should be dismissed. Others may be found, or HPB and Olcott may
turn out to be right, that nothing solid is available regarding the personal
natures of the masters, and we are wasting time looking for it rather than
APPLYING the teachings they left us.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application