Nov 06, 1995 00:55 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
quoting PJ as having the goal of--
> Proving the reality of the Masters and thus getting HPB and
> Theosophy some long-overdue respect.
> You lost me here. Part of your premise As I read it--and
> as everyone else I know who has read the book reads it is that
> HPB created an elaborate fraud concerning the existence of the
> Masters in order to cover the identity of some politically
Definitely not a premise. When I first started out I didn't
even intend to get into the mystery of the Masters but was
just trying to fill in some blanks in HPB's biography. When
the first hypotheses about the Masters began to emerge the
political context was not yet very apparent.
I and any dictionary defines "premise" as propositions
leading to a conclusion. It really doesn't matter that your
intentions and hypothesis changed as you wrote the book. That is
the normal state of affairs of doing research. Your book as a
finished product draws conclusions based upon premises you set
down. Whether or not those premises were what you intended as a
result of your shifting "intentions" and "hypothesis" also
doesn't matter. What matters IMO is the finished product that
is read by the public and judged by their own experiences.
talking here about my motives for doing the research which are
quite distinct from what I found once the research was
You may be talking about your motives but I'm not. Your
motives may be implied in your premises but I don't need to know
your motives in order to understand your premises.
BTW I wouldn't say "HPB created an elaborate fraud"
but rather that "in attempting to conceal the identities of the
Masters while proving their existence HPB became involved in
an elaborate mixture of truth and fiction that developed once
underway in ways that she could not control." I don't think
she deliberately set out to perpetrate fraud but rather than
when asked questions she couldn't safely answer she came up
with diversionary responses blinds that took on a life of
I would call that an elaborate fraud. It was she who
advertised the existance of the Masters and it was she who
explained their nature. Whether or not her fraud was
"deliberate" is an interesting question but makes the result no
less of a fraud.
> How does this gain public respect for HPB and the
Before my books there were two extant possible interpretations
of the truth value of the Theosophical literature's claims
about the Masters:
1 They are completely fictional the consensus of virtually
all non-Theosophical writers
2 They are just as HPB described them the consensus of
vitually all Theosophical writers
I see at least one more which I think is far more important
than the two you mentioned--the neo-theosophical portrayal of the
Masters which is precisely the one which the public is most
familiar and what the public will be measuring their concepts of
the Masters against when reading your book.
and I propose
3 They are fictionalized portrayals of real people who were
HPB's spiritual teachers and occult sponsors
Right. Now how does this proposal gain respect for HPB and
The effect of my work on the non-Theosophical reader's view of
HPB and the Masters appears to be to demolish option 01
We can't know for sure but it seems unlikely that people
who already made up their minds that the Masters don't exist
would be interested in reading your book in the first place. But
for that chance reader-- you have given that person another
option. Have you met anyone who ABSOLUTELY did not believe in
the existence of the Masters who were drawn to read your book
under their own volition? I'm not referring to people who had
doubts about the Masters but those who were convinced by people
like Marion Meade and Washington that they didn't exist.
The evidence that is
rejected by Theosophists as inadequate to prove all my specific
hypotheses conclusively is accepted by non-Theosophists as
quite adequate to establish the plausibility of the general
thesis-- that the Masters existed but were not accurately
described by HPB.
So you are saying that your book has brought non-
theosophists who did not believe in the Masters to accept your
thesis "that the Masters existed but were not accurately
described by HPB"? Any evidence of this?
To my mind proving that HPB derived her
teachings from genuine adepts e.g. people with recognized
expert knowledge in various traditions Kabbalah
Rosicrucianism Sikhism Tibetan Buddhism etc. is a
considerable step forward from the Meade/Washington etc.
portrayal of her as a demented medium who concocted her
teachings from poorly-understood books.
I agree. "Proving" this would be a step forward and would
wipe out your first interpretation: that the Masters don't exist;
and wipe out your second: that the Masters are as HPB described
them. It would also wipe out my additional interpretation: the
neo-theosophical concept the Masters. However you didn't "prove
it." You offered only a "suggestion" as Godwin said in your
introduction. Therefore you have done nothing more than add
another possibility to the above three and others too.
But to return to my original question: how does "proving" or
even "suggesting" that "in attempting to conceal the identities
of the Masters while proving their existence HPB became involved
in an elaborate mixture of truth and fiction that developed once
underway in ways that she could not control" give HPB and
theosophy some long overdue respect? It seems that you are
substituting one negative perception for another. But the real
question is what is the truth of the matter? If neither option
is the true one then I don't think much of a positive nature was
My own opinion is that you have raised a possibility but
not in my mind anything that approaches a certainty. Perhaps a
more thorough search and a deeper probing would have brought me
over. But in reading your book I would ask myself as I read
from page to page: how did he ever interpret this quote like
that?; why did he bring this up and ignore that?; why does he
accept this but doubts that?; why is he presenting this side of
the story and ignoring the other? etc. Of course I'm hardly
your typical reader either. I have copies of almost every
reference you used within 30 feet of me and a lot more that I
believe would have been relevant but not used. Also I did go
through the trouble of checking those references. I think it is
the rare reader who already knows the literature as well as you
that you have to lookout for and aim to convince. If you can
convince that reader then the rest are easy.
> But as Godwin says in the introduction to your own book you
>were only offering a theory and nothing more. If your theory
>turns out to be fact then you have indeed exposed more than one
>myth and you *will* be deeply respected at least by me for
>it and as far as I'm concerned you will have done a great
>service to the TM. On the other hand if it turns out not to be
>true then you have created a new myth that makes the Masters as
>represented in the Mahatma letters to be fabrications; Olcott to
>be a fool; and HPB to be a fraud. With this second scenario
>how did you ever expect for even a moment that the Theosophical
>Organizations which owe their existence to your so called myth
>created by HPB would ever welcome your book?
You are talking about implications here implications that were
never apparent to me as I was writing the book and which even
now seem to me to be far too harshly stated.
Are you saying that your proof readers never brought these
"implications" to your attention?
Does my work really imply that the Mahatma letters are
fabrications? I think not; HPB evidently believed herself able
to enter into telepathic communication with adepts she knew and
wrote while in such a state of consciousness.
I think so. Compare the rhetoric of your statement with the
perjoratives that I have starred in Godwins' intro:
The two Mahatmas most involved with the Theosophical Society
during HPB's indian years were called Morya and Koot Hoomi
and were *alleged* to perform *wondrous psychic feats*
through her. p. 02
Already doubt in being put into the minds of the readers
concerning the possibility of "feats" like the "telepathic
communication" that you suggest above. Now for your statements:
Although the previously cited pages imply that Olcott was
responsible for writing some of the later KH letters and
that Thakar Singh had a role in the correspondence with
Sinnett HPB clearly was deeply involved p. 174
This sounds like the suggestion of a fabrication to me. And your
The nature and extent of HPB's communication with the
Masters remain mysterious. But it is reasonable to conclude
that the Mahatma letters are more the work of HPB than
believers care to accept yet more inspired by real Masters
than her critic have even imagined p. 175.
Now where is your suggestion that HPB was in telepathic
communication with the Adepts? I realize that you quote Sinnett
as making this suggestion among other people making other
suggestions but where do you suggest that such a telepathic
communication might have actually took place? If I were an
uninformed reader who believes in the possibility of telepathy I
believe that I would still come to the conclusion from your
description that HPB and perhaps Olcott fabricated the letters.
Whether or not they were influenced by Thakar Singh would count
for nothing in raising my estimation of HPB.
I can't say how real such a connection was one way or another
but don't rule out its genuineness.
Not ruling out something doesn't give much. I don't rule
out that the pyramids were built by aliens either; but I wouldn't
bet on it.
Regarding Olcott I don't see him as a fool at all but as
someone who grew wiser and wiser over the years of his
association with HPB and who became in a very important
way an Initiate of the mysteries through his connection with
Yes. I was aware that you think quite highly of HSO. I'm
really addressing another one of those "implications" here that
you might not have been aware of. Or what you call:
"implications that were never apparent to me as I was writing the
As for HPB being a fraud I think your use of that as a
noun suggests the black-and-white view of the subject. No I
would not say that HPB *was* a fraud and don't think my
hypotheses imply it. Rather she was a person with sincere
motives and genuine wisdom to share who because of
circumstances beyond her control was obliged to package that
wisdom in a misleading way. But it is indeed easy to see why
Theosophists are not embracing such a view.
I'm glad to know that you do see why most theosophists
don't. Whether non-theosophists share your above stated view of
HPB after reading your book is another question. This post is
getting too long but perhaps in another one I will look at your
rhetoric in TMR concerning HPB.
Thanks for the chance to clarify or confuse further? some
And thank you. This was a good chat and it clarified some
of my own thinking too.
||Please reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org ||and
CC to email@example.com
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application