Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00702)

At 03:54 PM 12/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:48:10 -0700 (MST)
>From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW)
>To: theos-l@vnet.net
>Subject: Jerry Schueler on KPJ's THE MASTERS REVEALED and other Reflections
including Zetetic Skepticism
>Message-ID: <199612242048.NAA23830@mailhost.azstarnet.com>
>
>Jerry Schueler on KPJ's THE MASTERS REVEALED and other Reflections including
>Zetetic Skepticism
>
>Jerry Schueler writes:
>
>>Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:09:15 -0500
>>From: Jerry Schueler <GSchueler@worldnet.att.net>
>>To: theos-l@vnet.net
>>Subject: Thesis vs. Hypotheses
>
>>Paul, as I read your book, I too thought that your thesis
>>was that HPB used a combination of fact and fiction, rather
>>than your revealing any exact personalities.  You left
>>this in terms of probabilities rather than definites.  I agree
>>with you.  BTW, what is your feeling on the identities given
>>to us by Alexis?  I do not recall Dan ever rebutting Alexis'
>>identities of M and KH. I presume that he would be
>>opposed to *any* attempt to equate human personalities. Dan,
>>did you ever write a rebuttal of Alexis' revelations?
>
>
>Jerry, I would be most happy to write on Alexis' identities of
>the Masters M and KH.  BUT he never provided me with enough information
>other than to say that Master M was really the Maharaja of Benares
>and KH was really Ranbir Singh, Maharaja of Kashmir.
>He did provide one other detail that he believed KH appearing at
>Lahore in Nov. 1883 was really Ranbir Singh.  Compare this with what
>KP Johnson says:   KH appearing at Lahore was really Thakar
>Singh.  I would assume that most of us would agree that at least one of these
>hypothesis on KH is flat wrong!
>
>Alexis never provided
>his reasoning, his evidence or his sources for these bare statements.
>When I asked him for such, he simply became negative with me and
>threw insults my way.  If you, Jerry, can get him to provide us with
>more details, evidence, reasoning, etc., I will undertake a
>historical analysis of his hypotheses.  My analysis may turn out to
>be a rebuttal of his hypotheses.  Maybe not.  I am somewhat intrigued
>with his hypothesis that Morya was really the Maharaja of Benares.
>
>Jerry writes:
>
>>I presume that he [Dan?] would be
>>opposed to *any* attempt to equate human personalities...
>
>I am assuming that you mean that I would be opposed to any
>attempt by Johnson or anyone else to identify the Masters
>Morya and Koot Hoomi with any "human personalities".  If this
>is what you mean, then I will definitely say you are wrong in
>your presumption.  From my study of the original source documents
>of HPB's time, I am inclined to believe that Morya and Koot Hoomi
>were physical human beings with human personalities and therefore,
>they had names and addresses, etc.  In theory, I see no reason why
>one could not identify who Morya and Koot Hoomi were.  It's a matter
>of looking at the evidence and seeing if one can make a positive
>identification or not.  I simply believe in light of what I present in
>my HOUSE OF CARDS that Johnson is barking up the WRONG tree.
>JRC in a recent post says that one  Theosophical organization wants to
>keep the Masters mysterious.  Well, this may be true.  I don't know
>if such a broad generalization is true but I do know that a number of
>students of Blavatsky have told me that one should not delve
>into the personalities of the Masters and that to do so would be like
>snooping.    But I try to approach the subject like a historican.  What is the
>evidence?  In what direction does the preponderance of evidence lead us
>in our conclusions?
>
>A number of attempts have been undertaken before Johnson's books
>were written to name the Masters.  Mary K. Neff  in the 1940s
>wrote one or two articles in which
>she attempted to identify M and KH.  As recently as the 1970s, Geoffrey
>Barborka, George Linton and Virginia Hanson attempted to identify
>Koot Hoomi as Nisi Kanta Chattopadhyaya.  From my own unpublished
>research on Chattopadhyaya, I am convinced that he is not Master K.H. for
>a number of very good reasons.  Steve Richards in the American Theosophist
>several years ago tried to identify what Tibetan Buddhist sect Morya and
>Koot Hoomi belonged to.  I believe that Johnson in his books does
>not mention any of this prior study and information.  IMO, Johnson is as
far off
>in his identifications of these two Masters as Barborka, Hanson and Linton
>were off in their identification of Koot Hoomi.  All of these authors do not
>consider various information that throws grave doubt on their speculations.
>
>JRC, Richard I. and others on Theos-l are always being skeptical of what
>HP Blavatsky and other Theosophists (including Algeo) have written or said.
>That's fine and good with me.  Certainly ask questions.  But I have been
>equally critical and skeptical of Johnson's assumptions and statements.
>What's wrong with that?
>
>And I would say to JRC, RI, JS and others if you
>are going to be skeptical of "orthodox" commentators on Theosophy, be equally
>critical and skeptical of "unorthodox" versions as well.  Also if you want to
>be a "zetetic skeptic" be just as critical of your own assumptions and beliefs.
>I dare say that our greatest blind spot is our OWN  assumptions and background
>beliefs.
>
>And in the past I have noticed that a number of people posting on
Theos-l/Theos-
>roots have given the impression that  I was some sort of orthodox Theosophist
>or that I was "working" for the the various Societies in maintaining the
>status quo
>and combatting "heresies".
>
>Let me expand on this.  Yes, I do agree with Dr. Algeo, for example, on many of
>his criticisms of Johnson's books.  But this agreement, as far as I am
>consciously
>aware of it, is based upon my own understanding and research of the subject for
>almost 30 years.  I do not naively accept or reject what Dr. Algeo writes
>because he is a PhD or
>because he is the president of the Wheaton T.S.  My very good friend, the late
>Walter A. Carrithers, Jr., to whom I will ever be indebted, held many views
>about
>Blavatsky and her contemporaries which I totally disagree with.  And my
>disagreement
>is based upon various evidence which I believe Carrithers did not, for
>whatever reasons,
>consider.   A number of years ago, I published in Theosophical History a
>critique of
>Jean Overton Fuller's biography of HPB.  Miss Fuller was not too pleased
with my
>listing of dozens of her mistakes and misstatements.  And as far as I know
>she has
>a fairly "orthodox" view of Blavatsky and her Masters.  Take another example.
>I had published in The American Theosophist two years ago, my article on the
>origins
>of the "third volume" of the Secret Doctrine.  My conclusions run contrary
>to the opinions
>of more than a dozen deep students of the SD including Carrithers, Barborka,
>de Zirkoff,
>Cleather, Ryan and others.  Three current day students and friends of mine
>(Richard Robb,
>Dara Eklund and Ted G. Davy) still disagree with these conclusions of mine.
>I have listened
>to whatever input they have given me, but I still believe that my
>conclusions are clearly
>supported by the evidence.
>
>I write all of this to show that I don't approach this subject of
>HPB and her Masters with a rigid belief system or with a priori assumptions.
>I have gone out
>of my way since 1968 to collect everything ever written about Madame
>Blavatksy.  WHY?  So that
>I could read and decide for MYSELF what is what about HPB and her Masters;
>so that I would
>not naively believe or disbelieve based on second hand information.  I try
>to look at the evidence
>(whatever it may be) and try to come to conclusions based on the
>preponderance of that
>evidence instead of letting my a prior assumptions determine my conclusions.
>And I am
>also aware of how little I sometimes really know!  And I realize that after
>years of hard work
>and thinking through these complicated, complex issues, I may still be sadly
>mistaken
>on many of these subjects!!  And I am always open to input from other
>people.  Tell me I'm
>wrong but also please tell me how I am wrong, what I am not considering,
>what evidence I
>should look at.   What assumption I should or should not be making.  Etc. Etc.
>
>If Johnson thinks I have picked on him and have been unduly harsh with his
>speculations, he
>should read some of my unpublished material critiquing what various authors
>(including Marion Meade,
>Carrithers, de Zirkoff, Endersby and others) have written on HPB, the
>Masters and Theosophy.  I say that
>one should cross off the name of the author of a book or an article and
>judge the contents on its own
>merits.  Who cares who wrote the material!  Is the text  factual, accurate,
>fair, etc.?  Has
>relevant material and evidence been ignored?  Has the author carefully
>researched the material? What
>sources have been used and relied upon?  Etc. Etc.
>
>I have even used this approach in researching the writings of Blavatsky
>and the Masters.  This is a laborious job and very time consuming but the
>benefits of this approach
>are overwhelming.   An example:  Alan Bain has mentioned on theos-l within
>the last few months the
>Henry Kiddle speech from which Koot Hoomi allegedly plagiarized.  Years ago,
>I went and found the original
>publication in which Henry Kiddle's speech was published.  Then I went  and
>studied chronologically every
>article, etc. that was written (pro, con and neutral) on the "Kiddle
>Incident."  Including looking
>at the handwriting of the Mahatma Letter in which Koot Hoomi incorporates
>portions of Kiddle's speech.
>Maybe one of these days I will get around to writing an article on my
>discoveries.  Of course, most
>Theosophists or critics of Theosophy could care less about doing this kind
>of indepth research.  They
>might consider such research boring or they already have an opinion and
>evidence might get in the way!
>
>The same technique can be used in the study of HPB's writings and the the
>teachings contained therein.
>Some will say this is a very intellectual process but it is amazing how
>often after going through this laborious
>process (which can be sometimes very boring and exhausting) that various
>"intuitions" and "insights" enter
>one's mind.
>
>Daniel Caldwell

Hello, I noticed my E-MAIL address on top of this list as X-
Please explain the meaning of this. Even though I do participate, I read
all the lists with great interest. Happy New Year to all You Theosopists.
Brigitte