theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"

Aug 11, 2009 02:04 PM
by Morten Nymann Olesen


Dear friends

My views are:

First a few preliminary words:

A main objec within the theosophical teaching is:
"To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color."

The following is not an aggresion - but a compassionate protest and a defense against attack upon the theosophical teachings, as well as upon H. P. Blavatsky and the original Theosophical Society whom she was co-founder of!

I might be wrong, and I am always willing to listen to any criticism.
The question is whether the counterpart are a willing listener on the same level, when considering that compassion is not the same as trampling on your neighbour?

- - -

I find myself unable to be allowed to respond - on another by many wellknown forum ("On being declared the enemy of an entire movement"; The Theosophical Network)-  to the more or less honourable K. Paul Johnsons accusations against me and others views about him being an enemy of H. P. Blavatsky's teachings either it is conscious or unconscious on his part.  

His accusations has recently been voice at the Theosophical Network here:
http://www.theosophy.net/profiles/blogs/on-being-declared-the-enemy-of


Importantly, first of all his views are based on - a whole lot of assumptions - about some of those theosophists, who have - clearly proven - his writings in books and elsewhere to be a pile of mud-throwing at the theosophical teachings and its founders, especially H. P. Blavatsky.

And it is especially because of these - assumptions about almost any criticism against his - very honourable self or ego? - that K. Paul Johnson again and again has shown himself unable to understand, what theosophy really is, why his efforts court failure.

To defend H. P. Blavatsky against his views, I will therefore simply refer to some work, which already has been printed online on the Internet. Articles, which K. Paul Johnson are prefectly aware of the content of, because he has been confronted with their content.

Here is just one such place:

"Part I: Johnson's Thesis in Light of Colonel H.S. Olcott's
Testimony about the Masters"

"To set the stage, I quote three extracts from Dr. Joscelyn Godwin's Foreword to The Masters Revealed. These extracts outline succinctly Johnson's argument:
  "The principal Masters in question were Koot Hoomi and Morya, supposedly residents of Shigatse in Tibet...." (p. xv) 

  "The theme of this book is that HPB's Masters were not the Himalayan sages whom she invented to distract her co-workers...." (p. xviii) 

  "Mr. Johnson's suggestion---and he makes it clear that it is no more than that---is that the Mahatmas Morya and Koot Hoomi are fictitious Tibetan personae that conceal well-documented historical figures: Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh." (p. xviii) "


  ........ later .......


  "On Alt.Religion.Eckankar (an Internet discussion group), Johnson has posted a message (dated July 15, 1996) in which he writes:

  "If I can prove to the satisfaction of many scholars that Mme. Blavatsky fictionalized her Masters, and that the personae of Morya and Koot Hoomi are covers for other people, that does not detract one iota from the truth of the spiritual principles enunciated by her or the alleged Masters. But it does pull the rug out from under Alice Bailey, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, C.W. Leadbeater, and others who claim to have been in subsequent telepathic contact with the very people who can be shown to have been fictionalizations of quite different people." Italics added."

  ...... later .......


"One of my criticisms is that K. Paul Johnson ignores the majority of the evidence and testimony concerning the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. In fact, much of this ignored evidence and testimony can be used to refute Johnson's hypotheses. A well-known physicist, the late Dr. Richard Feynman, once made some important comments which I believe are relevant and applicable to Johnson's presentation of his thesis on the Masters:

  "Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can---if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong---to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it . . . ." Italics added."

  http://www.blavatsky.net/gen/refute/caldwell/johnson1.htm


I ask to any honest Seeker:
Why seek to prove something, which allows lies about H. P. Blavatsky to regin supreme?
H. P. Blavatsky several times mentioned, that the Master were real persons. 

Damodar Mavalankar went so far as to say that: "Note. -- We know of only one MAHATMA bearing the name of my venerated GURU DEVA who holds a well-known public office in Thibet, under the TESHU LAMA." (http://theosociety.org/pasadena/damodar/dam4.htm )


K. Paul Johnson has so far only yielded on a few minor issues, but despite the words - he continues to sell his denigrating books while he poses as an important author and able scientist, - and while he as well denigrates the theosophical organisations, while he is seeking to make them cult-like and more cult-like than some of his own favourite groups, especially ARE (the Cayce group). And this without giving the theosphical critics a fair opportunity and a fair answer to their quite justified views, - this by simply refusing to answer questions asked, and by appearing as hurt rabbit in a hole, while he himself throws dirt at those theosophists, who find his activities to be unjustified - while he is securing them to be unable to answer his aggressive activities on the same forums where is regins.

He would do well in reading the following articles and the pages in the Key to Theosophy, so to understand, why the theosophical teachings and its members aught not to be coinsided with each other! 

Because, the theosophical teaching is not a cult-like teaching. The Theosophical funder H. P. Blavatsky was not creating a cult, quite on the contrary! - Theosophists are by nature not aggressive - although anyone who chooses to (by false pretence ) to turn them into some vaillains can always accuse them to be something like that, if they pretend to be scared of any thing, which disagrees with their own agendas. It is pretty clear that K. Paul Johnsons words: "the big difference is how much arrogance, aggression, dogmatism Theosophists have demonstrated online over the years compared to ARE folks." - are unjustified. His perceived aggression ahs nearly always be an attempt to help him understand his own aggression towards - what any ordinary person normally would call compassion on our planet.


Here are the links mentioned in the above.

IS THEOSOPHY A RELIGION? 
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v10/y1888_085.htm

WHY, THEN, IS THERE SO MUCH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE T. S.? 
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm (p. 271-272)


The Original Programme of The Theosophical Society
"Let us not forget that Theosophy does not grow in our midst by force and control, but by the sunshine of brotherliness and the dew of self-oblivion. If we do not believe in Brotherhood and Truth, let us put ashes on our head and weep in sackcloth and not rejoice in the purple of authority and in the festive garments of pride and worldliness. Better it is by far that the name of Theosophy should never be heard than that it should be used as the motto of a papal institution."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm


If K. Paul Johnson would stop selling his books, he might find me agreeing with him.
If not the disagreement remains, unless I am being clairified why my views in the above hold no good water.


As I have repeatedly stated. I am writing with the aim of helping the theosophical cause along. And most certainly not the opposite by telling the whole world something as sinister as that Master KH and Morya af fictious imaginations created by H. P. Blavatsky.

Some of us claim to know about these Masters, although we are unwilling to talk more about them than we are allowed due to moral afterthought - considering prejudices and assumptions of all kinds. Hence my disagreement!


M. Sufilight



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 5:46 PM
Subject: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"


Dear friends

My views are:

Try to read the following thread. I am like most members here a Seeker after Truth and compassion. And because of that I would honestly like to know, what you think about this thread, and whether I did something to deserve a warning from the forums administration?
 
"cult factors of religions"
http://www.theosophy.net/forum/topics/cult-factors-of-religions

I thank you to all in advance.



M. Sufilight

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


           

[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application