Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tl00440)

There is some interesting traffic on theos-talk. Here is a msg I just posted

mkr
==========================================

K. Paul Johnson wrote:
> 
> According to BJack5259@aol.com:
> >
> > I have followed the discussions by Paul Johnson and others for some time
> > regarding the lack of offical endorsement by the "Leader of the Wheaton TS",
> > etc.  They have  termed this "squelching".
> 
> Endorsement?  Who said anything about endorsement?
> Acknowledgment of the book's existence is the issue as it
> relates to Adyar.  Excessively hostile and personal criticism
> is the issue as it relates to various people in America.
> 
> > briefly,  and read his book - but I do recall that his book "In Search
of the
> > Masters", which he autographed for me, was "pushed" in Atlanta, and also at
> > the Mid-South Federation meetings.  I have not seen any "squelching" of his
> > book among the membership.
> 
> Talking different books here.  But Adyar likewise failed to
> acknowledge that one with a review.
> 
> > upon the merits of its style and content.  And so it has.   If Mr. Johnson
> > equates "squelching" with a lack of offical endorsement of his conclusions
> > about the Masters, then he is being highly unrealistic and more than a
little
> > immature.
> 
> You are being highly personal and missing the point entirely.
> It's not my book that was squelched so much as the legitimacy
> of the inquiry it pursues, in the Theosophist piece and many
> comments made elsewhere including by Dr. Algeo.
> 
> >      He and his supporters in this discussion appear to complain about the
> > non-acceptance of the conclusions of his research into the Masters - "his
> 
> "Appear" is the key word; meaning "to you."  No way!  It would be preposterous
> to expect that.  The problem is non-acceptance of the value of
> inquiry into the subject.
> 
> > ideas should not be squelched" they say, and denounce the lack of support as
> > a violation of certain principles of Theosophy.  In this, they miss their
> > mark.    Mr. Johnson should realize that his conclusions about the Masters
> > contradicts much of the common understanding of the Masters within the four
> > Theosophical movements known to me.
> 
> He does.
> 
> >      They also forget that the duty of the leaders of any organization
> > include the support of those ideas to which the group subscribes.
> 
> Here we get to the heart of the matter.  The Theosophical
> Society--Adyar subscribes officially ONLY to its Three Objects;
> unofficially to the three fundamental propositions of the Secret Doctrine.
> Beliefs about the Masters are entirely individual, as has been repeatedly
> insisted upon by HPB, Olcott, and the Masters' letters.  I can
> think of no point that is made clearer in the literature than
> that.  There is *no* idea about the Masters to which the
> Society officially subscribes.
> 
>   Mr.
> > Johnson seems to ignore the reality that the publication of his book by the
> > TPH would have been tantamount to an official endorsement of the substance
> > and conclusions of the book.
> 
> Certainly not so.  There are disclaimers in front of every
> magazine of the TS, as I recall, saying that the views of each
> article are those of the author and not the Society.  Similarly
> with TPH books; no one to my knowledge has ever taken them as
> official TS doctrine, as to do so would fly in the face of the
> fundamental principle that *there is no such thing.* You also
> should realize that TPH didn't just reject publication of the
> work, but thereby the opportunity to critique and shape its
> final form which might have been very different had they
> accepted it.
> 
>   Likewise, an offical endorsement by Dr. Algeo
> > would carry the same weight.
> 
> Therefore, favorable reviews in the official journals of the
> Australian, French, and English sections meant that the book was being
> endorsed officially by the Society there?  No way!  Just what do you
> mean by "endorsement" anyhow?  Was Joy Mills's favorable review
> in The Quest an official "endorsement" which then had to be undone by an
> equal and opposite reaction in the AT from John Algeo?
> 
>   Is the denial of this official endorsement,
> > which would have been a personal vindication of his long and arduous
> > research, and greatly increased book sales, not the real cause of the
problem
> > here?
> 
> I assure you that there is no such thing as official
> endorsement in the TS, that book sales were just fine thank
> you, and the "real cause of the problem" depends on what you
> think the problem is.  By the way, Dr. Algeo's attacks on the
> book came far too late to impact sales, which had already
> peaked.  They may have hurt the sequel though.
> 
> >      Given the conclusions of Mr. Johnson's book, it is and was highly
> > unrealistic for him to expect the praise of those who see the Master's in a
> > different light.   Non-endorsement is not the same as "squelching!"
> 
> Agree 100%.  But what happened to Tillett was definitely
> squelching.  And the vehemence of Dr. Algeo's remarks, which
> came close to accusations of heresy, verged on squelching
> but did not cross the line.  Adyar's choice to run an article
> with the book's name, but which in fact did not refer directly
> to the book and simply indirectly dismissed the entire field of
> inquiry, was definitely squelching.
> 
> snip
> 
> >      In short, anyone who seeks the public's attention by speaking or
writing
> > must be thick-skinned enough to realize that he will never find universal
> > acceptance, much less the overwhelming endorsement of those charged with
> > protecting the current wisdom.
> 
> You have erected a straw man from the very beginning of your
> post, and you keep beating away at it mercilessly.  But none of
> this has much of anything to do with the issue at hand.
> 
>   Mr. Johnson should grow up.
> 
> Thank you for your personal concern.
> 
>  He should
> > publish his findings for their own sake and for the good that he belives his
> > truths may offer others.  For Mr. Johnson to quit the Theosophical Society
> > because his divergent ideas were not officially endorsed, and because he
> > received the criticism of  a few Theosophists, a criticism that he must have
> > anticipated, greatly lessens his stature in my eyes.
> 
> I did *not* resign from the TS for that reason at all, but
> allowed my membership to lapse in the wake of the by-laws
> changes and a host of unsavory revelations about Adyar and
> Wheaton.  It lapsed just last winter, long after all this
> happened.  You misread this too:  what I said was that I felt
> perfectly comfortable in the lodges in DC and Baltimore, and
> the whole Mid-Atlantic region where
> I am known (and where my ideas have never been officially
> endorsed, and in fact people are freely critical of them) but
> that I felt exiled insofar as attendance at national
> functions goes because there were so many people so filled with
> fury and outrage.  That alone would not cause me to resign if I

> continued to have faith in the organization.  Had you been on
> theos-l you would have been aware of all the issues that caused
> quite a number of people to lose faith in Wheaton and Adyar,
> which had nothing to do with me and my writings.

   Glad you mentioned theos-l discussions. For anyone interested in the
various issues relating to the administration of TSA, there was a wealth
of information none of which is available anywhere else. I hope anyone
open minded would take time to visit the archives and see for themselves
and make up their own mind -- independent thinking and decision making
which is supposed to be the hall mark of a thinking Theosophist.

> 
> My experience with the TS--Adyar has been about 90% positive,
> and my "problem" is with the authoritarian way the top
> officials think and operate.  Part of that is their tendency to
> try to control members' thinking and I am only one small
> beneficiary of that large problem.
> 
> Since you are being so free with such personal criticism it
> would be nice to know who you are.
> 
> PJ

One thought occurs to me. Was the writer of the msg from Atlanta, in any
shape or form, either directly or indirectly, suggested or recommended
or encouraged or provided info or ideas, edited, scripted by *anyone* in
the TSA Administration in Olcott to write the response? If so, I would
in the least be surprised!!!!

mkr