Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tl00041)

     Hello!

18 May 1998 "K. Paul Johnson" wrote:

kz> BTW, what's your purpose of refuting existance of the masters?
PJ> You seem to have totally misunderstood my writings based on
PJ> second or third hand information.  Read something I've written
PJ> before attacking me, at least!
 Maybe quotations & abstracts I've seen on WWW were prepared a wrong way.

PJ> Rather, I wrote them while my own adherence to the literal,
PJ> traditional view of HPB's Masters was gradually lessening due to
PJ> the information I was unearthing.  Not due to any competing
 I also worked out some hypotheses about masters which don't match
the "traditional view". But I don't write any books about it
because these are only hypotheses & I never had any personal
experiense concerned with those masters. The book stores are already
overloaded by cabinet thinkers' writings.

  My current view of the masters is the following:
Masters are still unexplained phenomenon of nature which probably
helps to speed up evolution of humanity.

PJ> Theosophy was at the center of my life for almost 20 years.
 Oh, sorry, i never took it so seriously.

PJ> In America we call that a "When did you stop beating your wife?"
 Well, but if you got married, you should handle with care with yr. wife
for no one could even suspect that you beat her. You might actually
not beat her but nevertheless she may show to neighbours that you do. :)

PJ> start making odd insinuations about my motives.
 It was only a joke :()
We russians are here still wildmen & have not developed sense of
political correctness yet ;)

PJ> Is this a fit way for theosophical discourse to proceed?  We should be
PJ> here for discussion involving openness to evidence, friendly camarade-
PJ> rie, willingness to learn and share. If you approach it as a place for
 Theoretically it might be so but practically your books (regardless of
their contents & what you have intended when writing them) didn't add
add unity to relationship between the theosophists (which they badly
lack), as the discussions which took place here 2 years ago show.
"(We) wanted as (to do) better but got (the result) as always", as our
ex-prime minister said. And it's the normal fate of books written by
"a cabinet thinker" (I also criticise the apologetic books about mas-
ters written by those, too). I'd never recall these books without yr.
recent posting from "Newsweek". The article quoted was neutral, so why
are you trying to attach it to Blavatsky's theosophy? The title *Pri-
soners of Shangri-La* points to the book about that land (I forgot the
title) which was a fiction. BTW, Dalai-lama criticised the books by
Lobsang Rampa as presenting the wrong image of Tibet. So he does it
when finds it necessaty.
  All said above doesn't indulge me for exceeding criticize but yr.
message which contained no meaningful information seems to me a pure
provocation for something like that.

     With best regards, Konstantin.

at home: ziatz@chat.ru
http://www.chat.ru/~ziatz