Nov 09, 1995 03:21 AM
by K. Paul Johnson
According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
Note-- I'll be fairly brief here and respond only to the
substantive points rather than differences in points of view
since those seem clear enough without hashing out more.
> References to Shigatse doesn't help. You may as well have
> said Maryland. To much territory. The drawing doesn't help
But Shigatse is a *city*.
> She is not arguing against the existence of these Masters but
> telling of her efforts to keep Olcott from becoming carried away
> with his fantasies about them:
> don't see anywhere in the quote you gave that HPB is telling us
> "not to believe her on this subject" but if anything not to
> embroider upon what she does say.
A more relevant quote is "I saw with terror and anger the false
track they were all pursuing. The `Masters' as all thought
must be omniscient omnipresent omnipotent...I have desecrated
the holy Truth by remaining too passive in the face of all this
desecration brought on by too much zeal and false ideas." So
while she is not saying "I actively misled people about the
Masters" here although other evidence points in this
direction she is definitely saying that Theosophists have
developed a mythological view of the Masters she saw it
happening and did nothing to stop it. But she wasn't just a
passive nonentity in all this; in fact she fanned the flames
but later regretted it. This was more than she was
willing/able to admit.
> Actually I find The Durbar in Lahore to be much more valuable
> historically since it seems to be mostly if not entirely
> non-fiction and can be juxtaposed against the more fictional
> accounts in C&J letters to Sinnett etc.
> OK. HPB's letters to Sinnett are "fictional"? That's a new
More fictional than the Durbar in Lahore. Theosophists have
privileged HPB's letters to Sinnett as an ultimate source of
information on the Masters ignoring their conflicts with other
sources. Yet she knew this was going to be published. Why
would she tell more of the truth to him than to others
especially knowing it would appear in a book? Will post
separately on this.
> "blinds": Dayal/Djual Endreinek Agardi/Agardi Metrovitch
> Ten-dub Ughien/Ugyen Gyatso Mulraj Singh/Lala Mulraj
> "Krishnavarma" no first name/Shyamaji Krishnavarma not to
> mention Gulab Singh/Ranbir Singh whose father was Gulab and
> Koot Hoomi Lal Singh/Thakar Singh.
> You would have made a great English major. That is the fun
> of literary criticism techniques you can create patterns where
> there were no patterns before. It is just a matter of carefully
> selecting the evidence. Now lets see: Damodar is really Djual
> Kuhl; Morya is Metrovich; K.H. is really a blind for Katherine
> Hillard.... Give be a little time and I could find damn good
Certainly not obvious similarities of names comparable to those
I cite above.
> And who created elaborate "disinformation." Don't you
> consider "disinformation" a deception?
Sure. But the point is that Meade explicitly and Campbell and
Washington implicitly assume that the Masters were entirely
fictional. If my work was not an unprecedented way of looking
at the subject it wouldn't have created the splash it has.
> But she sure as hell became one especially after death.
a religious leader
> I don't blame her for that. Do you?
Partly. Creating the ES was an absolutely disastrous mistake
from which sprung almost everything harmful in Theosophical
history after that. Olcott was right on that one.
> Several others-- a Ph.D. historian a sociologist a
> biochemist-- people who are in the general populace but have
> academic credentials-- have indicated the same evaluation. The
> formerly universal outside TS circles consensus that the
> Masters were fictional simply has no leg to stand on anymore.
> It is interesting that you even found "several" in the
> general populace even cares one way or the other.
I doubt that Theosophists account for more than a quarter of
the sales of TMR. But have no way of knowing for sure.
> I find it extraordinary that no non-theosophist has misread
> your book.
I didn't say that. I said that the particular kind of
misreadings about my intentions outlook etc. described in the
passage came only from Theosophists.
> Don't have the sources in front of me but HSO called him "one
> of our Masters" as I recall.
ODL somewhere; can't find the passage offhand. But he speaks
of the Master of Ceremonies of the Panchen Lama being "one of
our Mahatmas"-- but does so after the death of the Sengchen in
question so may be talking about his successor.
> From HPB's writings. Unless you establish your own
> definition I have to go by HPB's and HSO's usage of the terms.
> In my readings of HPB I have not experienced a blurring of
> "Adept" and "Mahatma." They mean different things. However an
But the emphasis in my book is on the inclusive term "Master."
Whether or not Sankaracharya was called a Mahatma by one of the
Founders if he was called an Initiate Adept capitalized that
makes him a Master. Fine points about Adepts vs. Mahatmas are
entirely beyond the range of confirmation historically;
"Masters" covers both.
> I don't involve myself with that crap. I don't accept the
> "spiritual authority" of anybody and theosophists with "received
> views" are no exception. For this reason I'm rejected by the
> inner circle just like you are. The difference is that I never
> wanted to be a part of that inner circle in the first place--
You assume something here that is quite untrue. I never wanted
to be part of the inner circle-- just to escape being molested
> in a way that made it seem false? Remember that HPB said that
> EVERY religions was false on its surface true in its depths.
> Why not apply this to the religion of Theosophy?
> Because I don't regard Theosophy as a religion.
I doubt there's a sociologist or historian of religion who
would agree regardless of any Theosophists' protests. Quacks
like a duck...
> What kind of "progress" do you expect? What was you goal?
Some response along the lines of "enough on that issue let's
agree to disagree but what about x?"
> To convince Dan that your thesis is right? Why not forget about
> "progress" and just defend your thesis against his questions and
> criticism until he runs out of questions.
Why not? The more relevant question is why should I? What is
to be gained? At what cost to me in time and energy? Who will
benefit? The overwhelming consensus of people who have advised
me in private email is-- forget it.
> That is to be expected. But eventually he will run out.
It's been 02 and a half years. Again how much do I owe critics
of my work? A lifelong guaranteed instant response to anything they come
> It isn't the words it is the context in which the words are
> used. Yes in another context these words may not be
> perjoratives. It is the context of Godwin's usage of these words
> that is the issue.
Actually I wrote the introduction Godwin the preface.
> > Nothing if you had taken the time to relate to the reader
> > HPB's explanation of how Mahatma Letters are transmitted.
> > Otherwise it appears that she was fabricating.
> your thesis concerning the Masters does not address my views as
> stated above one way or the other concerning HPB because my
> opinions of her in these areas do not depend upon the existence
> of the Masters under any definition. Do you understand what I'm
> saying now?
I guess. But do you not care whether she took the trouble to
seek out experts in the spiritual traditions she wrote about
to learn from them firsthand?
> If she had perpetuated a fraud but never came clean with
> it than I would still consider her a fraud. Feeling sorry is
> not sufficient repentance. There also has to be restitution.
I see the vast majority of her writings that appeared after
her departure from India and after she started to downplay the
Masters as restitution.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application