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

Re: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"

Aug 15, 2009 09:36 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen

Dear friends

My views are:

Still no comments on this?
I feel the silence at this forum to be somewhat cold.

I ask:
Should I take this forums silence as implying, that the majority of its members heavily disagree's with the views I have presented about K. Paul Johnson's books, (especially "The Masters revealed"), in the previous e-mail and especially the isseus "6. a- h" ???

Here you have the mentioned e-mail: 

- - -
Other issues in the book "The Masters Revealed"...

Here is another one of them by K. Paul Johnson:
"HPB's fascination with Tibet as the home of the Masters was rooted in childhood experience of the Kalmuck tribe which practised Tibetan Buddhism in a region near Astrakhan."
("Masters Revealed" p. 4)

I wonder what such a view is based on? Has K. Paul Johnsons actually been into HPB's mind since he boldly allows himself to assert something like that?

Astrakhan is geographically place north of Iran.  

H. P. Blavatsky stated that she had been clairvoyant from birth seeing devas since childhood. (TS Glossary:  There are 33 groups or 330 millions of them.) . And also "I saw Master in my visions ever since my childhood." - (HPB's letters to A.P. Sinnett, p. 150). 
So why on earth should HPB base her teachings on something earthly at all, and because she lived in Astrakhan for a realtively short period of time? Or why throw the above view by K. Paul Johnson into a theosophical Seekers face?

It is such a biased presentation of H. P. blavatsky, which I find to be non-compassionate.

Well I just ask.
- - -

Here is another by K. Paul Johnson:
"Although much of HPB's portrayal of Morya and Koot Hoomi was designed to mislead in order to protect their privacy, enough accurate information was included to make a persuasive case for their identities as these historical figures."
("Masters Revealed" p. 6)

I ask:
I wonder what one aught to call a "ENOUGH accurate information was included to make a persuasive case" with regard to the above claim on Morya being Ranbir Singh and Koot Hoomi being Thakar Singh.  (Emphasis on "enough" is mine.)

I ask myself whether I can justify the view thrown at me by K. Paul Johnson: A Master merely being an Old man with a white beard? And Ranbir Singh married five times?

Not at all. 
A photo of Ranbir Singh:

As a theosophist I will have to disagree. Intellectual examinations might give enough circumstantial evidence, and I will deeply question that enough is provided when reading the book "The Masters Revealed". And mere intelluctal examinations aught to coincide with esoterical theosophical ones. - And more so when talking about the Masters, we know that the initiates of the esoteric Kalachakra are able to use the powers of keeping their face and appearences young through centuries, if needed, as well as materialising and dematerialising. - And this is why some of us disagree with K. Paul Johnsons presentation. - Even today the available commentaries to the Kalachakra mentions this issue. - Something not hypothiesed about by K. Paul Johnson, when he with a very narrow focus was seeking to identify the Masters, because such was not his aim. And we wonder why? The answer to this has so far been silence.

Yet if someone could be said to have had certain similarities with Master Morya's - aims - no doubt Ranbir Singh would be one of them. On this I can agree. Yet I can only consider him a kind of chela of Morya. Masters are always less physical than humans. - I ask anyone to tell me if they know whether it was Ranbir Singh or Master Morya, who materalised himself in New York and gave H. S. Olcott that famous Turban now resting in TS Adyar?

A question that relates to the issue is:
And the precognitive "control spirit" John King and all the other spirits was perhaps living in London?

Here is something about Ranbir Singh, Pandit Daya Ram (jester to the Maharaja's court), and his school. Also Mukund Ram Shastri.

The attempt to materialise all and everything, without clear a evidence and reason, has been seen before. And we know where it leads. To no good.

3. Here is a third by K. Paul Johnson:
"This book is intended as a new beginning toward understanding a century-old mystery. HPB's more doctrinaire disciples may reject the possibility that her Masters can be identified through the method of historical research."
("Masters Revealed" p. 15)

Indeed we do. Although we would do the same about all other similar attempts to identify through the use of ordinary intellect without - at least - taking the esoterical teachings into account. And as mentioned in the above, Especially lacking to include in his book, the theosophical teachings on the ability to materialise and dematerialise, as well as the ability of keeping ones appearences young through decades if need be, is no good. 

And because of that the K. Paul Johnson's book ends up picturing the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi as ignorants or fictions created by H. P. Blavatsky. And we will have to reject that view given in "The Masters Revealed", simply because we would like to help people find these Masters themselves (like Morya with the turban) or at least first understand the theosophical teachings, which are altruism at its core. Because understanding the teachings are a prerequisite for infinding the Masters. In fact most often THEY find you, and not the opposite way around. :-)

Are K. Paul Johnson saying that Master Morya did not materialise in New York in 1876?

Not to mention K. Paul Johnson claim about Thakar Singh being Koot Hoomi and thereby turning a theosophical Master into a fumbling Prime Minister for Maharaja Duleep Singh's 'government-in-exile'. I cannot agree upon this idea.

Here is a to me non-agreeable photo of K. Paul Johnson's Koot Hoomi (Thakar Singh).

I find K. Paul Johnson's thesis in "The Masters Revealed" in this case almost to be an attempt to mock the whole theosophical movement. Of course I could be mistaken about his intentions. I wonder what the agenda behind all this is, because I find it hard to agree upon it being a theosophical one.

4. Here is one more by K. Paul Johnson:
"The Saint-Germain manuscript to which she alluded inflamed her imagination with the idea of mysterious adepts manipulating occult undercurrents of European politics."
("Masters Revealed" p. 20)

Pure speculation on K. Paul Johnsons behalf - similar to his view on the Kalmyck tribe. And seems to be seeking to make HPB look ordinary and stupid. Even so he presents it as an assertion, although, as his mantra sometimes says,  again his intentions might have been something else.
But he clearly seem to forget, that H. P. Blavatsky claimed, that she saw her Master in visions since childhood, and millions of devas through her clairvoyance. Was she just a hysterical woman in the vein of a Christian-psychological stance? - I believe Dean Radin in his "The Conscious Universe" have give enough evidence to conclude that ESP - Extra Sensory Perception is more likely than the opposite - and in his book - he has revealed that governmental projects agree on this view. Other authors have shown the same. So I conclude, that being a clairvoyant and seeing Devas are enough to make you know, that there really are higher beings. So either I take it that HPB are lying or someone else are lying or telling halftruths etc.

- - - 
Master Morya according to H. P. Blavatsky:
"This is my Master," she said, "whom we call Mahatma Morya. I have his picture here."
And she showed me a small panel in oils. If ever I saw genuine awe and reverence in a human face, it was in hers, when she spoke of her Master. He was a Rajput by birth, she said, one of the old warrior race of the Indian desert, the finest and handsomest nation in the world. Her Master was a giant, six feet eight, and splendidly built; a superb type of manly beauty. Even in the picture, there is a marvellous power and fascination; the force, the fierceness even, of the face; the dark, glowing eyes, which stare you out of countenance; the clear-cut features of bronze, the raven hair and beard-all spoke of a tremendous individuality, a very Zeus in the prime of manhood and strength. I asked her something about his age. She answered:
"My dear, I cannot tell you exactly, for I do not know. But this I will tell you. I met him first when I was twenty,-in 1851. He was in the very prime of manhood then. I am an old woman now, but he has not aged a day. He is still in the prime of manhood. That is all I can say. You may draw your own conclusions."
"Have the Mahatmas discovered the elixir of life?"
"That is no fable," said H. P. B. seriously. "It is only the veil hiding a real occult process, warding off age and dissolution for periods which would seem fabulous" so I will not mention them. The secret is this: for every man, there is a climacteric, when he must draw near to death; if he has squandered his life-powers, there is no escape for him; but if he has lived according to the law, he may pass through and so continue in the same body almost indefinitely.""

Now we all will have to ask K. Paul Johnson and ourselves:
Is H. P. Blavatsky a liar or are K. Paul Johnson unjustified trowning mud after the old lady?
Are such persons masters or rather wiise ones existence not a prerequisite to the theosophical teachings?

If nobody else will: I will claim, that I know that Morya was such a being as pictured by HPB.
Yet been given knowledge about a few things does not make me all-knowing. I have a Karma too, and heavyer than some of you might contemplate.

- - -
A few words:
Now comparative studying is part of the theosophical teachings.

So why am I constantly being told by K. Paul Johnson that I am attacking him, while I tell him that he attacks HPB and the theosophical teachings - and I seek out of mere compassion to help him understand this and that his books are damaging?

Is it not possible to disagree with a person and even an - esteemeed - or even a non-esteemed author if it is done with good intentions in mind? Are any honest criticism to be ruled out?

Remember I have extremely seldom spoken out against K. Paul Johnsons books.
But I do it here right now because, I also have my limitations. Just like others before me on this forum - mind you not at The Theosophical Network, - where he is being admired as a staunch promoter of what the forum call theosophical teachings - and where opposition to his activities clearly seems disallowed. And thus the Seekers seek to create a Universal Brotherhood of mankind based on what THEY call theosophical teachings or wisdom.

- - -
Theosophists in the old days also spake out against smearing and unjustified portrayals of the theosophical teachings and the Society. There are enough examples on this.

M. Suflight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:45 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"

    Dear Sampsa and friends

  My views are:

  First of all I would like you to reread my previous e-mail carefully, because must somehow have missed the whole point I was referring to in that e-mail. 

  And i will mention that the answer is perhaps a bit lengthy, because I wanted to give some useful information.

  Remember, I am not the only theosophists, who have raised my voice against these books and the fact that they are still being sold. There are several theosophists.

  Sampsa said:
  "We Theosophists don't have to believe everything what H.P. Blavatsky or any other teacher says."

  M. Sufilight says:
  Of course not, and that was precisely not the aim with my previous e-mail. Thinking so, is just a nasty assumpotion leading to no good. But, I dear say, that when the truth is proven to you, you aught to reconsider throwing mud after it, do you not think so?

  - - -
  Sampsa said:
  "Maybe you are a little too enthuasistic follower of hers and demand that nobody is allowed to criticize her?"

  M. Sufilight says:
  I am not dealing with maybe's and accusations like that. Show me if I am "a little too enthuasistic follower" of H. P. Blavatsky. Unless you can do that your smearing leads nowhere.

  - - -
  Sampsa said:
  She clearly doesn't know much of Tibet, and what she knows, only seems to come from western sources. 

  M. Sufilight says:
  Again so far only a negative assumption. Who are you basing your views upon?

  - - -
  Sampsa said:
  "There is also evidence that the Masters strangely don't know the Tibetan language, though according to HPB they know very well. There is an interesting article "Tracing the Source of Tibetan Phrases" by Antonios Goyios on Daniel Caldwell's website about this ignorance. "

  M. Sufilight says:
  There is no actual proof in this. We have several times experienced scholars (often with a Christian-related ax to grind) jumping on H. P. Blavatsky about her lack of knowledge about Tibet. And several times it has later been proven that it was they who themselves were ignorant about a whole lot of things. - Some of us know more about H. P. Blavatsky than we are able to forward.

  Take the phrase at them mentioned article at
  " Many of these terms have been, to date, successfully identified with their intended Tibetan equivalents, while a number of terms still remain unidentified, or do not lend themselves unquestionably to a single solution. "

  And we all have to ask by whom? Scholars? Non-clairvoyants?

  And we also have the phrase:
  "Tibetan, however, is a language which has plenty of words with similar or even identical pronunciation, and whose distinction and main way of telling their difference lies in the way they are written, rather than spoken, as they can radically differ in terms of spelling."

  Yes, but not always so!
  And we have to face the fact, that some Chelas do make minor mistakes from time to time, or at least what some non-claivoyant scholars or even most Lamas find to be mistakes.
  "kam mi ts'har", might be an esoterical expression not to be read litterally at all.
  And again, when one reads the above mentioned article by Antonios Goyios one will find, that he used a whole lot of assumptions to confirm his thesis. Assumptions are not the same as actual knowledge about the words and the language used.

  Some persons, it seems, are more enthusiastical about supporting scholars opinions than clairvoyants and masters knowledge. Based on my above views, I tend to call the mentioned article a scholarly biased one in its conclusion.

  - - -
  Sampsa wrote:
  "There's a theory that the two Masters M and KH WERE real Mahatmas, but that HPB made up their living in Tibet in order to prevent Sinnett from searching for the Masters with an army in India. Maybe it happened this way, who knows? We may speculate."

  M. Sufilight says:
  Why would one like to create such a theory, when there are an abundance of evidence saying the opposite? 
  - Damodar K. Mavalankar even said that Mahamta KH had a public office under the Panchen Lama. And all the Mahatma Letters was created by a theosophical network of conspirators, including Hübbe Schleidens - Mahatma Letters in a train as well as the Vega Package???
  The thesis rest on no solid evidence at all. I claim, that In parts of nothern India - the Himalayan Masters are still a wellknown term, even if some would like it to disappear. And I dare say this even if I have not been to India in this physical body.

  - - -
  Sampsa wrote:
  "I don't think that Paul Johnson is an enemy of Theosophy if he says that the Masters were totally unreal. Theosophists don't have to believe even in Masters."

  M. Sufilight says:
  The theosophists can decide whether the Masters are real or not. But when the theosophical society had and - still has? - as its aim to promulgate theosophy (The Key to Theosophy), I find it highly unlikely, that something similar to a Master, can be left out of the hypothesis covering such a promulgation. What do you think?

  About K. Paul Johnson's more or less concious enmity of the theosophical teachings - and the Blavatskyan - Theosophical Society I say the following words....

  About "that the Masters were totally unreal." 
  Perhaps. But that is in fact not alone what he actually are saying is it. 

  a) First there is his book bearing the nasty title "The Masters Revealed: Madam Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge". Why on earth call the White Lodge a mere MYTH, if your agenda is a noble and compassionate one? - This alone aught to tell you that something is not quite right, and that the book contains a negative stance on the Himalayan Masters. There is no white washing here although the attempt is made in the Foreward. The attempted damage and resulting damage is clear. The fact is that this title have been taken negatively by potential members of theosophy, who know these days are rejecting the theosophical teachings because of this book. 

  - In the Foreword, the ULT branch of theosophy are being labelled a sect. 

  - In the Foreword of the book "The Masters Revealed" we also have and I quote: 
  "The theme of this book is that HPB's Masters were not the Himalayan sages whom she invented to distract her co-workers, but a large group of men and a few women who helped, encouraged, or collaborated with her, in a lifes work that was not only spiritual but socially idealistic and fiercely political."

  M. Sufilight says:
  What a nasty statement. My view, is that If HPB had her say, this would have belonged in the trashcan with another pack of lies. HPB did not invent the Masters. They are real and was real. Her claimed involvement of - mixing - the theosophical society with politics lacks all kind of evidence. And must be taken as a nasty attack on the whole movement, which the Masters and HPB promoted.

  Later the Foreward attributes and degrades HPB's worldview to be Mahayana Buddhistic. That is a false statement. HPB was a theosophists at the core. She was at the same time a Buddhist, but she never failed in saying that Buddhism also had its short-comings even the Mahayana version. Because theosophy is not Buddhism (The Key to Theosophy, 2nd ed. 1890, p. 12) The theosophical teachings are esoterical and not known under the term Mahayana Buddhism, except perhaps when we use the term Tibetan/Gelugpa Buddhism when tallking about certain branches of it.

  And the Forward continues by calling H. P. Blavatsky "emotional" and adds "hatred" as a spiece as well. - To me the aim of this book was and is clearly not to give HPB's a fair treatment! Not at all.

  K. Paul Johnson wrote in Masters Revealed:
  "This marks the end of the "veiled years" in which HPB made the initial contacts with Masters on which her later carreer as a spiritiual teacher was based." (p. 1)

  No. Not at all. H. P. Blavatsky's career was always based on the divine within. That was the central teaching of her theosophy, and not external guru's although - a number of the theosophical society's through the years have sought to smear HPB and the Society with such remarks. 

  So now the thesis has been made. The attack is unleashed as we will see.

  K. Paul Johnson wrote in Masters Revealed:
  "This doctrine of endless magical war between opposed lodges gives raise to equally endless paranoid fantasies." (p. 3)

  No. This is not a theosophical doctrine. And this is what the reader invariably will perceive it to be. And that is not good. Theosophy says: Without good there would be no bad. The doctrine of the Manvantara's contains the worlds of dualism - and of good and bad. This doctrine is merely a part of a greater - quite unthinkable whole. The Law of Karma are due to its active justice able to create such views about endless circles of magical wars. But they are in fact not really the truth. What some find to be good others find to be bad. - Theosophists promulgating the theosophical doctrines - let the Law of Karma regin sumpreme and not those paranoid fantasies, which K. Paul Johnsons attributes to the theosophical teahcings. (Try The Key to Theosophy, 2. ed., 1890, p. 271-272 - on Prejudices aganist theosophy)

  What I am saying is: No evil magician can do anything against the Law of Karma.

  Yet the paranoia in various theosophical circles, which might exist are no worse than what is going in the the local Christian Church and other groups which craves dogmas, assumptions and prejudice.

  One of the greatest mistakes in K. Paul Johnson's book "Masters Revealed" is that he through out the book fails to examine his assumption, insinuations, false and true claims about the Master KH and Morya in the light of the wellknown ability of Materialising and De-materialising ones physical body at various places on the globe. As well as the ability to mask ones physical body to look and appear like somebody else. (The Kalachakra teachings + commentaries are in fact dealing with this subject.)

  If he had done so as a true theosophist certainly would have done, he would have reached an entirely different set of conclusions in his book. Please consider this, because this is truely one of the greatest problems with his theosohical book(s).
  - - -

  And because he keeps selling this book and another one nearly similar in its degradations - which has this aim among others - I find him to be an enemy of the theosophical teachings as they were given by H. P. Blavatsky and a number of other theosophist in her time as long as he continues his agenda.
  I could continue. There are much more sinister info.

  Do you understand me this far, dear Sampsa?

  Spamsa wrote:
  "Johnson made a good point that people in religious groups usually don't like historians."

  M. Sufilight says:
  Perhaps. I would rather says. The theosophical teachings will always fight dogmas and cholarly pharisee's when they attack the theosophical society - and the wisdom teachings of all ages. The initiates have several methods at their disposal - yet they always have to perform they within accordance with the Law of Karma - also called the Law of Compassion. The remover of ignorance about good and bad.

  Any comments?

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sampsakuukasjarvi 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:31 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Theosophy and "cult factors of religions"


  We Theosophists don't have to believe everything what H.P. Blavatsky or any other teacher says. Maybe you are a little too enthuasistic follower of hers and demand that nobody is allowed to criticize her?

  I myself consider HPB more genuine and deeper than, for example, CWL, but I am sure that some of her statements are untrue. She clearly doesn't know much of Tibet, and what she knows, only seems to come from western sources. There is also evidence that the Masters strangely don't know the Tibetan language, though according to HPB they know very well. There is an interesting article "Tracing the Source of Tibetan Phrases" by Antonios Goyios on Daniel Caldwell's website about this ignorance. Daniel told about this article on this forum in April - I believe that HPB and her pupils wrote many of the Mahatma letters.

  What could have been the reason for this possibly fake Tibet connection? There's a theory that the two Masters M and KH WERE real Mahatmas, but that HPB made up their living in Tibet in order to prevent Sinnett from searching for the Masters with an army in India. Maybe it happened this way, who knows? We may speculate.

  I don't think that Paul Johnson is an enemy of Theosophy if he says that the Masters were totally unreal. Theosophists don't have to believe even in Masters.

  Johnson made a good point that people in religious groups usually don't like historians. It is unfortunately true that also Theosophists attack historians easily. Let's not be a cult or a sect! But Johnson's posts there on another Theosophy forum are difficult and vague, because many readers don't know at all what the words like ARE, CofL and CUT, which he uses, mean.


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


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

[Back to Top]

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