P. Johnson, R. Burnier & J. Algeo
Feb 19, 2006 01:33 PM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline
I will keep to the premises.
You seem to imply that objective (dense) things are true, while subjective
(subtle) things are
This is not the premise of the esoteric philosophy. This is not the
viewpoint of Pythagoras, Plato,
HPB or the Masters.
The 2Oth century physicist Fred Hoyle wrote that "the Universe is directed
Scientists like F. Capra, R. Sheldrake and David Bohm work with the concepts
of "systemic view",
"morphic field" and "implicate order", which are recent scientific versions
of the ancient Akasha or Astral Light.
This basic concept with several names would help you understand that
subjective levels of consciousness are the "territory", so to say
(metaphorically speaking) where truth can be found.
Therefore the Masters are NOT their physical, outer instruments or
It follows that to reveal Masters is not to say which name is written on
their personal IDs. They can only be found on higher levels of
consciousness. One central issue, thus, seems to be that you do not seem to
recognize that truth is inner.
On the other hand, on your commentary on Radha Burnier and John Algeo (see
below) it confirms my previous perception that you may have more in common
with those who plant doubts HPB's personal honesty and ignore her
philosophy and teachings, like John Algeo, than with those who have respect
for both HPB and her teachings, like Radha Burnier and thousands and
thousands of Adyar TS members.
No big deal, though. You have been frank these days, you have had an
ethical behaviour, and these days PRACTICAL ETHICS counts far more than
opinions and ideas in several aspects of life.
As long as I am concerned, the debate is starting; it must advance step by
there are no easy answers to everything; and things will get clearer in a
No one has the entire truth in this debate, and everyone has something to
teach others in some way or another.
Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline
From: "kpauljohnson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Theos-World Fear and loathing of Theosophical history-- who is
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:34:41 -0000
Since Carlos asked me which was better, Radha Burnier's open
hostility or John Algeo's ambivalence and machinations, I thought I'd
answer him. Despite the manipulative aspects of his behavior, I
think that John has a genuine desire to promote Theosophical history--
within certain limits of Adyar tolerance of course. Whereas Radha is
indifferent or hostile to anything historical, as best I can tell.
BTW her look didn't say to me "I hate you" or anything like that,
just "I am alarmed by the possibility you might find out and expose
something I want kept secret."
In 1996, The Theosophist featured an article entitled "The Masters
Revealed" which pointedly avoided acknowledging that there was any
book by this title about which the non-review was obliquely
commenting. This was strange since the book had been widely reviewed
in the Theosophical world during the previous couple of years, mostly
favorably. Dara Eklund wrote in this piece: "Who then are the
Masters? How may we know them? For the beginning student it is first
vital to know their message. If we, illumined by the heart, act by
the heart's guidance, we will by this light reveal them to
ourselves...neither the brain-mind, nor the psychic approach work."
This echoes a theme found in John Algeo's review of TMR, that
evidence and reasoning are completely inappropriate and irrelevant as
approaches to the subject of the Masters. Objectivity is out, total
subjectivity is in. Whose interests are served by promulgating this
Mindful that we cannot know others' intentions or motives, we can
still identify peoples' interests and suggest how these were served
or frustrated. What interests were involved in the championing of my
work by such eminent Theosophists as John Cooper, Joy Mills, Geoffrey
Farthing, William Laudahn, Leslie Price, Michel Caracostea? What
interests were served by dismissing it as unworthy of any serious
attention, as Dara Eklund and presumably her editor Radha Burnier
wished to do? What interests were served by the attacks of Daniel
Caldwell and John Algeo, admitting some value in the books but
contemptuously dismissing them on certain issues that were considered
crucial to Theosophists?
I suggest we look back for an answer a few years to the reception of
Dr. Tillett's The Elder Brother in the Theosophical world. Radha
wrote a contemptuously dismissive note in The Theosophist, never
naming the book or author but saying that its allegations about CWL
were all malicious and disproven. So assertion without any
supportive argument, and ostrich-like head-in-the-sand rejection of a
scholarly book, were already established as standard practice at The
Theosophist a dozen years before I experienced the same. The
American Theosophist was similarly contemptuous and dismissive of The
Elder Brother but never named the book or its author as I recall.
The Adyar TS was polarized during my years in it between the HPB-
focused, more serious students and the CWL-focused psychism devotees
and ES members. Cooper, Mills, Farthing above all, and Caracostea
were in the former camp. For them, (my guess) scholarly
investigation of the Masters supporting the credibility of HPB's
sources(within limits) would both strengthen their side and weaken
the CWL side. Because no such evidence as I had voluminously
collected establishing the reality of HPB's Masters could possibly be
presented to support CWL's claims! And the Adyar ES is based on
So how did a couple of HPB-leaning Adyar members, Daniel Caldwell and
Dara Eklund, end up in alliance with the CWL devotees, denouncing a
book that was perceived as much more damaging by that faction than by
the above-named HPB students? Serving the interests that just wanted
the whole subject stifled before it started to undermine any claims
about the esoteric status of the leaders? I don't know, but
presumably their access to TPH and the main power figure in it, John
Algeo, outweighed any qualms they might have about protecting CWL
from scrutiny. This was a real shame for the movement, because the
meme "it is inherently anti-Theosophical to ask historical questions
about the Masters" served to cover CWL's a**, continuing to make it
impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff. HPB can withstand the
kind of scrutiny I pursued; CWL cannot. Since he rather than she is
the real basis of the ES, it is his historical reputation rather than
hers that the Adyar TS is most sensitive about. Hence the ostrich
reaction to Tillett's excellent biography.
What strikes me most about how things evolved is that the reaction
against TMR played perfectly into the hands of the CWL faction in the
Adyar TS. Yes, it is impious, a spiritual crime to ask historical
questions about the Masters. Whose interests were served by that?
Whose were harmed?
I have far more questions than answers.
Looking back over the archives I found a lot of pleas from me for
civility and mutual respect. Knowing now that this was a hopeless
cause because there was a provocateur actively working against it all
along, I will repost these to give a sense of Theos-l ten years ago:
Confrontations and mistrust:
win-win vs. win/lose and lose/lose
HPB vs. Theosophical orthodoxy
Theosophist a fighting word
Scholars and jackals
Yahoo! Groups Links
Ganhe tempo encontrando o arquivo ou e-mail que vocÍ precisa com Windows
Desktop Search. Instale agora em http://desktop.msn.com.br
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application