TWO QUITE DIFFERENT FACES
Aug 01, 2006 02:03 PM
Paul Johnson is not interested in real, transcendental Theosophy.
As so many others, Johnson thought he could "explain" HPB and "reveal " the Masters from a purely materialistic viewpoint.
Of course, he is entitled to say whatever he wants about HPB and the Masters.
The question is: who, in the theosophical movement, started using P. J. inside the movement, as if his points of view could be "interesting" to students of esoteric philosophy?
He himself reveals it, in his frank writings to Theos-talk in February 2006.
It was John Algeo, and youself, besides your alter ego and false identity "David Green", who opened, or half-opened, the movement doors to Paul Johnson.
After some time, though, you "discovered" that it was not politically profitable to use Johnson any longer to your own purposes. Or -- was it no longer necessary? Please clarify.
Then you started to apparenly defend the movement against PJ, but I guess that at the same "David Green" was giving publicity to P. Johnson's stuff in "his" ("David Green's) website!
One personality of yours criticized P.J., while the other personality of yours gave publicity to his books and texts? Am I right?
It seems it took some time to PJ to discover, or at least to get to the conclusion, that David Green and you were one and the same person.
Perhaps you can give us details about that.
Data:Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:36:20 -0000
Assunto:Theos-World I wish Paul Johnson had the taken the time and effort to answer my points....
> I wish Paul Johnson had the taken the time and effort
> to answer my points that I had made in the following essay:
> "A Closer Look at Some of K. Paul Johnson's Arguments
> Concerning H.S. Olcott's Testimony about the Masters"
> His answers might have clarifed some of the issues
> in regards to his thesis on the Master M. and K.H.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application