[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


Nov 09, 1995 09:58 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins

> She is not arguing against the existence of these Masters but
> telling of her efforts to keep Olcott from becoming carried
> 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.

This quote doesn't do it for me either. Yes I see her
expressing regret for not doing enough "remaining too passive"
but I don't see that to mean that "she did nothing to stop it"
and I certainly don't see how you can read into this quote that
she "fanned the flames."

> OK. HPB's letters to Sinnett are "fictional"? That's a
> one.

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.

Is this a supposition on your part or do you have a quote
from her or Sinnett showing that she "knew" these letters would
be published? Remember these letters were not published within
HPB's or Sinnett's lifetime. Of course I have heard the theory
that everything that a person writes--even the most private
things in their diaries are written with the unconscious
knowledge that they might be published but I have a hard time
with that theory.

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.

Because he unlike anyone else had a long term continuous
correspondence with the Masters. I think that would entitle him
to a little more information coming from a mutual friend.

> "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
> arguments to support them.

Certainly not obvious similarities of names comparable to those
I cite above.

Like the theosophical or anti notables: Helena
Blavatsky\Helena Roerich; Daniel Caldwell/Daniel Caracostea;
Mohini Chatterji/Jagadisha Chattapadhyaya; A.J. Davey/Ted G.
Davy; Samuel Dunlap/Daniel Dunlop; John Eglinton/William
Eglinton; Paul Fussell/Joseph H. Fussell; S.A. Gilbert/Robert A.
Gilbert; Richard Hodgson/Geoffrey Hodson; Paul Johnson/Charles
Johnson; Alvin Kuhn/Fritz Kunz etc.? Just think of how much
easier it is to do this with Indian names--they are some much
more common: Singh; Murti; etc. If they are Muslims then it is
even easier since almost everyone is named Muhammad.
I forgot to mention that the fatal flaw of the literary
critic is when they convince themselves that what they wrote is
the truth of the matter.

> 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.

Spash? Probably the number of people in the world who might
care one way of the other are only a few thousand. But among
that audience I would say that you got the attention of many of

> 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.

If it remained along the lines that she created it and died
with her I think it would have been OK. But I would not blame
the creator for the damage done by her supposed successors.

> Don't have the sources in front of me but HSO called him "one
> of our Masters" as I recall.
> Where?

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.

Let me know when you run across it again.

> 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

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.

Unless you define your terms your reader can't be expected
to know what you mean.

> I don't involve myself with that crap. I don't accept
> "spiritual authority" of anybody and theosophists with
> 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
by it.

You are assuming something that is quite untrue in my
experience. One cannot be outside of the inner circle and make
unwanted by the inner group contributions to the TM without
being molested. You seem to have missed the dynamics here. To
not be molested you can: 1. be outside of the IC and do nothing;
2. be in the IC and make contributions while under their control;
3. Allow yourself to be co-opted by the IC. To be molested you
can: 1. Thumb your nose at the inner circle and continue to act
according to your conscience. 2. Act according to our conscience
and allow yourself to be hurt by their molestations.

> 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...

It never occured to me to ask nor does it matter. *I*
don't regard Theosophy as a religion nor was it intended to be
one. For those members of the TS who treat it as a religion the
majority I sometimes think that's their problem--and the

> What kind of "progress" do you expect? What was you

Some response along the lines of "enough on that issue let's
agree to disagree but what about x?"
You can't expect to make rules for these things. You had a
choice to respond or not to respond. But suddenly choosing not
to respond in the middle of a debate doesn't look to good.

> To convince Dan that your thesis is right? Why not forget
> "progress" and just defend your thesis against his questions
> 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.

Those are great questions to ask *before* making the first

> 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
up with?

You never owed them anything in the first place. It has
always been your choice.

> It isn't the words it is the context in which the words
> used. Yes in another context these words may not be
> perjoratives. It is the context of Godwin's usage of these
> that is the issue.

Actually I wrote the introduction Godwin the preface.

Fine. But this is not responsive to my point.

> > 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.

I don't. I see some as exposing the sham that was pulled on
her e.g. "Why I do Not Return to India" and her philosophical
writings e.g. the ~Secret Doctrine~ as perhaps showing the world
what she was really capable of.

My copy of your message broke off at this point but
hopefully this is food for thought.


Jerry HE

------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins
||Please reply to: ||and
CC to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application