Jorden vores lille planet i kosmos
Global Theosophy

Global Theosophy

En sand esoterisk stjerneport og stargate.
En indgangsport til andre verdener af energi, visdom og medfølelse
(Theos-L Forum - det ældste teosofiske forum på Internettet.)


En privat hjemmeside om
Teosofi, esoterisk visdom og
åndelig udvikling...

Nogle få af de personer bag moderne Planetarisk Teosofi, som jeg er tilknyttet.
Medgrundlægger af moderne Planetarisk Teosofi:
H. P. Blavatsky (1831-91)
Helena P. Blavatsky
Medgrundlægger af moderne Planetarisk Teosofi:
Mahatma Morya (fødsel-?)
Master Morya
Esoterisk Chela af moderne Planetarisk Teosofi:
D. K. Mavalankar (1857-?)
Damodar K. Mavalankar

The book named "The Masters Revealed"
is an attack upon the Theosophical Society and H. P. Blavatsky
(published Aug. 4th 2013 by Morten Nymann)

All of the below was written for the sake of truth and altruism, and not to put anyone down, and written to defend the Theosophical Society from what I view as its well meaning or less well meaning opponents. And defend the good name and reputation of H. P. Blavatsky and others equally in the same connection against unjustified attacks on their name and integrity. All this in the name of altruisme and truth. I do hope that no reader would mind that I here in the below seek to protest against what I consider to be untruthful nasty and unjustified accusations.

To begin with it might be well to understand that the Theosophical Society, organisation, co-founded by H. P. Blavatsky with others, here including H. S. Olcott and W. Q. Judge, was an organisation of no ordinary kind and with an organisational structure very different from almost any other organisation in world at the time of its existence in the early period of its existence, 1875-1891, and also later today where we see almost the same.

The non-sectarian organisational structure of the Theosophical Society is most clearly seen in the Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society given in the year 1890-1891.

The 1890 Constitution of the Theosophical Society a central quote:

1. Any Fellow who shall in any way attempt to involve the Society In political disputes shall be immediately expelled.
2. No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrines being that advanced, or advocated by the Society."
Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society given year 1890-1891 (web edition)
Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society year 1890-1891 (Page 33 in the Fascimile PDF, or page 65 in the journal)

The non-sectarian concept of the Theosophical Society clearly implied that no doctrines was forward by any administrator, or ordinary member of the Society on behalf of the Society, but always on behalf of the individual himself or herself; the co-founders are of course therefore also included in all this. This non-sectarian concept we do not witness in many organisations, not even today. The Theosophical Society still follow this concept, under a reformulated version thereof named the Freedom of Thought concept. A concept saying almost the same.

I hold it to be very important, that there is a prevalent lack of understanding of this non-sectarian concept among great many scholars, journalists, New Agers, religious seekers and others. And this often for the simple reason, that it is not known about, or because most humans are used to the ordinary religious concept, where religious teachers forward a teaching more or less as a belief. Sometimes there are other reasons, like a claimed better religious agenda seeking to keep the Theosophical Society down, or intolerant behaviour by the opposers.

The above non-sectarian concept of the Theosophical Society would be well to keep in mind during the reading of the rest of this article of mine.

For several months now we have witnessed an article by Richard Ihle being given a unique prominent position on the Theosophy.Net website and forum.

(See the left column on the website here, ---- where someone, just below the bold written headline saying - ”Features on Theosophy.Net” - have used time on a photo saying: ”General Theosophy Vol. 1 #1-100 by Richard Ihle” - linking it to the article by Richard Ihle named "Richard Ihle: Introduction to General Theosophy 1-100;" - Posted by TheosNet on April 22, 2013 at 5:00am, says the article it self. Added october 2018: The link in the left column on the website has disappered now. It seems that some people have read my article. The link to the article is still valid. )

I will in the below forward a few views of my own about this article. I do it because of its content and because various persons involved with this particular forum on the Internet, seem to have a continuous efforts – either consciously or unconsciously – of throwing a bad name upon the Theosophical Society and how it originally was established.

*** A ***
Richard Ihle writes:
”Theosophical organizations having almost succeeded in making the remarkable 19th century Russian woman’s writings the preferred actual definition for the word Theosophy—in the same faulty way, perhaps, that the writings of Frederick Nietzsche—and only the writings of Frederick Nietzsche—might be twisted into the preferred actual definition for the word philosophy. "

Morten Nymann says:
The words in the above therefore also include the present day Theosophical Society with its headquarters in Adyar.

Well this is somewhat of an accusation by mr. Richard Ihle (and I aught to include the administration of the forum), is it not?

My shortly formulated definition of the term - theosophy - does not imply one single definite set of doctrines based on one author or an orthodox system of thought, but is a term denoting: each individuals theory of the meaning of life as well as each individuals search for the meaning of life, as well as ordinary philosophical and transcendental philosophical views, and more.

(See also H. P. Blavatsky, co-founder of the Theosophical Society saying: "Theosophy is certainly not a philosophy, simply because it includes every philosophy as every science and religion."...and more. - BCW, Vol. XI, p. 434.)

And on what do we witness Mr. Richard Ihle has based his accusation? Answer: Nothing what so ever in the article in question. And since the philosopher Nietzsche has nothing to do with the term - theosophy - in the sense it was used by Blavatsky and other members of the Theosophical Society, then I wonder why his name aught to be involved as a comparison.

When we experience that this is the case, I think that we are dealing with what some persons using the Internet are calling: forwarding prejudicial views. And since ”forwarding prejudicial views” is disallowed on the very same forum where the article is posted, namely Theosophy.Net - I wonder whether the persons behind the forum are having honest movtives. I would heartily welcome them to show us all how such an accusation based on no solid evidence at all – aught to be posted on a prominent position on this website and forum for such a long time. What ethical motivation is behind such a unfounded claim and slanderous methodology?

Based on the above I will simply conclude that the persons behind the forum is not promulgating altruism, but un-documented attacks on the theosophical organizations, here especially the Theosophical Society. (See here also the mentioning of the book “The Masters Revealed” and my below comments thereon). Or else they have formulated themselves unfortunately and the author Richard Ihle as well. I here include the persons behind the forum, because I bet that Richard Ihle did not put the photo in the left column on the forum website by himself, unless he was given special access to the forum. And because the persons behind the forum have allowed the access-point to this article to be given such a prominent position for such a long time.

Richard Ihle and the persons behind the Theosophy.Net forum violates, as I see it, their own rules for the forum. And I and no doubt others wonder therefore what kind of altruism those persons are an expression of?

I will document the above views by quoting the following from the rules of the Theosophy.Net forum...

The rules on the forum named Theosophy.Net says among other things:
”1. Comments of a discriminatory or prejudicial nature: Under no circumstances should there be discrimination on bases such as race, gender, age, class, religious or political affiliation, sexual orientation or other sweeping categorical bases not listed above. Common sense should be observed when in doubt; if your comments are openly prejudicial against any group, they should not be posted. "
Theosophy.Net forum: Rules of the Road

I find that the words by Richard Ihle in his article are formulated in a prejudicial manner, and without any documentation what so ever given with regard to his accusations. But since I am not a member of this particular forum Theosophy.Net – I could not care less if it was not for the more or less ugly manner of attacking other organizations, the Theosophical Society included, – and – then at the same time heavily disallowing the same members of these organizations to have their say on the same forum, namely A forum disallowing exchanges of a Theosophical related nature having its basis in the original Theosophical Society and later early off-shoots thereof, or various later off-shoots.
(See here: Terms of Service - "With this in mind, we will not allow any discussion of the Theosophical Societies, HPB, her Devotees, Cosmosophies, or other organizations and religions which splintered out from her Doctrinal Syncretisms." - Theosophy.Net forum: Terms of Service)

With the above in mind, one can not but help wondering why the article by Richard Ihle has been allowed such a prominent position by the administrators behind the forum - since it constitutes a clear exchange upon the matters dissallowed in the rules of the forum. We can only ask, and hope for an answer. No answer has arrived so far.

Quite a number of members of theosophical societies (related to the Blavatsky and Olcott Theosophical Society) have been thrown out of the forum Theosophy.Net through its short timespan of existence, about 4 years, just because they allowed themselves to be critical of those who based on no solid documentation attacked theosophical organizations. The above article being given such a prominent position for several months clearly seems to be an example on a strange self-contradicting the attitude of this forum and its administrators.

*** B ***
Richard Ihle writes further:
”THE TRUE BELIEVER, of course, is also the title of a book by the longshoreman/philosopher Eric Hoffer. Here is a slight variation of one of his memorable insights: "Every great cause begins as an idea, becomes a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." Let me hasten to say that I do not think that merely the narrowing of a definition has turned every Theosophical organization into a racket. Within The Theosophical Society in America, for example, there still is a significant, original-idea “searching-for-Truth" component among the membership—even if such a “Quest” might not always exactly mean that a person can, on an entirely equal organizational footing with other members, rely on his or her own intuitive understandings rather than submit to the written authority of H.P. Blavatsky and/or her "Masters."”

Morten Nymann says:
Since the rules of the same forum where this article by Richard Ihle is posted is saying that the forum has no preference for any Theosophical organization before any other, and, that it is in no manner affiliated with any of them (see the present day FAQ-section of the Theosophy.Net forum saying: ”We have no affiliation of any kind with any of the various Societies and related organizations which were formed from the current of theosophy started by Helena P. Blavatsky ”) – it seem strange to some readers that the Theosophical Society America (whether it be the Pasadena or Adyar one is a bit unclear) is given a thumbs up, while others are not - or am I mistaken?

The article will not unlikely be claimed not to be an expression of the policy of the forum.
But why then give it such a prominent position on the forum for several months in a row, unless the administration of the forum are behind its content?

I will let the readers judge, why such an article deserves such a prominent position on a website and forum which seem dedicated on throwing all theosophical organizations down the drain – except perhaps the Theosophical Society America, which are judged to be better than other theosophical organizations, although given also as problematic, and all of it based on no real documentation.

*** C ***
Richard Ihle writes further:
”No, my view is that at least the national and international Theosophical organizations I am familiar with are not yet rackets; rather, they may still only be in their penultimate "business" phases. . . . But it should be noted, however, that I did not even suspect that they might have degenerated from their “movement” phases until a few years ago when there occurred so much commotion over the American Section’s decision not to publish Paul Johnson’s remarkably interesting and valuable book, THE MASTERS REVEALED. Not only was this title not published by the Society, but it also seemed to me that certain well-placed individuals sort of publicly “leaned against it” in a very defensive way that I had not seen before regarding any other book.

Johnson’s problem: Probably his suggestion that Madam Blavatsky’s “Masters” might have been, or at least modeled after, some historical, too-down-to-earth human beings, none of whom had been known for their ability to do preternatural things like appearing and disappearing at will or "precipitating" bossy written notes out of the "ether" and then dropping them from ceilings into people’s laps.

The Society’s problem: Probably its realization that Johnson’s merely mortal, all-too-common-caliber Master-prospects might diminish H.P. Blavatsky’s my-Messenger-is-better-than-yours authority regarding what had been reputedly “Communicated” to her about the creation of the universe, the exact details about after-life existence and reincarnation, and what a “proto-person” (“Lemurian”) living 18 million years ago had for breakfast. After all, take away the Angel Moroni and the Golden Plates, and all that is left is Joseph Smith, Jr., just from his own personal knowledge, telling prospective new Mormons that the American Indians are really the lost tribe of Israel.

And of course such a downgrade from well-advertised Extra-Extra-Priority Mail would undoubtedly be bad for religio-business in Salt Lake City, Utah; similarly, undoubtedly bad for religio-business in Wheaton, Illinois, and Adyar, India, too.”

Morten Nymann says:
The problem I have with the above is that we here have a biased stance. First of all the Theosohical Society in Adyar is a non-profit organization, and, it is not a sect, but non-sectarian, with a concept for Freedom of Thought.
(See here: Declarations of the Theosophical Society )

I will again give emphasis to the fact that the Theosophical Society is an absolutely non-sectarian organisation and was so from the very start in 1875. One can question whether it is doing a good enough job in forwarding this message today. But this is an entirely different matter. Facts are facts. And Richard Ihle does not seem to know about this non-sectarian concept (here the Concept for Freedom of Thought etc.) or chose to ignore it in his article and the words by him in the passage just above.

And we also have a biased stance by Richard Ihle in his article, because one SINGLE book is given emphasis in this article by Richard Ihle. Not by me, but by Richard Ihle. And since this occurs, I will have to address it for the simple reason, that if the Theosophical Organization being accused should be called such a bad name because of one possible single mistake (which I reject it to be) – namely not allowing the book by K. Paul Johnson being published by it as the noble organization it is - seeking the promulgation of non-sectarian altruism and a search for theosophy – I find this a very tough accusation to forward about an organization, which follow such noble objects as it does. (I do not think that the author behind the article would question that the non-sectarian Theosophical Society promulgate noble objects – compared to almost any organization on this planet? - Does he?)

One would almost reach the conclusion by reading the article that Richard Ihle is extremely happy about the book by K. Paul Johnson. Because to give one single book such a prominent position among all other books published in such an article seems to be quite extraordinary, when we also consider it being given a prominent position on the forum Theosophy.Net for such a long time. - And to then go and use this one single book as a basis for derogatory remarks about the theosophical organizations – the Theosophical Society included, without any real documentation is questionable. But maybe I read the intention with the article wrongly.
Let me seek to picture the problem with why the book by K. Paul Johnson - maybe - was not published by the Theosophical Society, as I see it. If someone - for instance - asked the Theosophical Society to publish a new edition of ”Mein Kampf” by Hitler, I think nobody would heasitate on that this aught not to be done. The same with a book like for instance Darwin's ”The Origin of the Species”. Okay? So far so good.

Then we have an article like for instance the one by Elliott Coues named ”Blavatsky Unveiled!
Subtitled: --- "The Tartar Termagant Tamed by a Smithsonian Scientist. Hierophant Olcott's Theosophical Elephant. How the Ringleaders Work The Fraud With Bogus Mahatmas and Humbug Phenomena"

- Should one be serious and publish such an article as a neatly packed phamplet?
I think not!

So where are we to put a demarcation-line on what to publish and what not?

I will here seek to give my opinion of it.

I think ”The Masters Revealed” by K. Paul Johnson is either a well meant attempt to forward a theory about the Masters of Blavatsky (and the views of others of the same Masters as well although this is heavily downplayed in the book), which is sought forwarded as a genuine scientific research and concluding analysis of the theory – or – the other version a deliberate attempt to call H. P. Blavatsky a liar and to plaster public opinion with the view that the Theosophical Society was nothing but a false and fake sham and a sect of the worst kind, with a hidden agenda. And that H. P. Blavatsky was a spy and a fraud.

The big problem is, as I see it, that the end-result of this book is the latter negative view about the Society and H. P. Blavatsky. That is what is the end-result and not the first. And K. Paul Johnson is himself the reason behind this result, because of his (perhaps careless) formulations and use of words about what the Theosophical Society originally was all about and an incorrect emphasis of it used in formulations throughout his book and especially the use of the title of the book. I will of course have to document this view. See documentation on this in the below.

The big problem is, also, as I see it, the reason given by the Theosophical Society for not publishing it. This reason why, I think has not been clearly documented, and officially only vaguely, and stands perhaps today as one of the reasons why the Theosophical Society continuously are meet with opposition from various seekers after what these seekers - themselves - call truth.

The big problem is, also, as I see it, that the whole theory upon which the book is based – is not forwarded in a strict, and I would say, that it is not forwarded in an honest objective scientific manner – because it so obviously are lacking prevalent vital and central counter views given by the one standing accused for being a lair – namely H. P. Blavatsky. H. P. Blavatsky never claimed that the Master K. H. and Morya were mirages, or astral images, but claimed them to be genuine Masters who could materialize themselves in the physical and who lived in the physical as well as in what she called the ”astral”. More than a few handfuls of theosophists saw them in the physical according to the documentation available. (See for instance here: Part I: Johnson's Thesis in Light of Colonel H.S. Olcott's Testimony about the Masters other references can be given if in need.) And this is in sharp contrast with the various sub-theories given by K. Paul Johnson. When a book contain such central mistakes, I tend to leave it alone and not publish it. (See the Foreword in the book Masters Revealed; here words about the book: "Mr. Johnson's occupies the middle ground. He obviously has a great respect and admiration for HPB, but he has no illusions as to the mischievous and even dark sides of her personality.", p. xvii. This is a foreword allowed in the book by K. Paul Johnson himself.)

- One better think twice before on seek to have ones book published at the same organization, where one seek to plaster its Co-Founder with being a lair based on insufficient and incorrect data.

And I think Richard Ihle and K. Paul Johnson and quite a number of others would agree with me on this if they were honest and ethical about it all, and sought the truth for truth sake, and altruism. The same goes for a plastering of the Theosophical Society in the same manner.

I will of course have to document this view. Here are some documentations with references in the below.

a) Foreword xviii says in "The Masters Revealed" by K. Paul Johnson, (1994):
”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 life’s work that was not only spiritual but socially idealistic and fiercely political. It was driven, of course, by HPB’s search for spiritual truth, which she found to her best satisfaction in Mahayana Buddhism, and for ways to give it to the world. But the emotional fuel for her activities came as often from a hatred of oppression, whether political, as of India by the British, or religious, as of a whole civilization by the Christian Church. "

Morten Nymann says:
I think that by allowing this passage in the foreword of his book, K. Paul Johnson automatically excluded himself from having his book published at the Theosophical Society Adyar. The reason for it, seen from my perspective, is not that the book is a theory and critique of Blavatsky. Because why not seek to find the truth about it all? The reason is, as I see it, rather, that the book is a wholesale nasty accusation – and – an accusation which is filled with faults bias and even errors throughout the book, and without a focus on the core theme of altruism which was so very central to the Theosophical Society and H. P. Blavatsky and many others, and still are.

- By allowing the above mentioned passage in the foreword of his book, he immediately reach a level of not being taken as a serious scientist doing serious research but as a person who in advance has an agenda and an ax to grind - namely plastering one single person with being what is called - hateful and even a wholesale liar – although much evidence is in opposition to such a view.

(I do not think I need to document it. “The Key to Theosophy” by Blavatsky alone aught to be sufficient, if one read it carefully. And I will add the Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society as given in the period 1875-1891. - Or - Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society, 1890-1891
(Page 33 in the PDF, or page 65 in the journal) ).

- If the ”theme” mentioned in the above book by K. Paul Johnson in the Foreword was genuine, namely Blavatsky being hateful in the manner mentioned, no member of the Theosophical Society would I think be much troubled by having such a book published organizationally speaking. The whole trouble with the ”theme” mentioned in the above quote is that it is a very strong accusation to forward upon a person who no doubt did a whole lot - to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities. (See ”The Key to Theosophy”, by Blavatsky, p. 2-3) – The word ”hatred” in the above quote in the foreword of the book by K. Paul Johnson is not resting on any solid evidence – and – even a superficial research by a genuine scientist will easily show this. So the book begin with a premise which from the very start rests on a false assumption or at least an assumption which quite a lot of evidence and documentation speak against. And I would therefore find it difficult to publish in any absolutely non-sectarian organization seeking the promulgation of altruism - whether it was called the Theosophical Society or something totally different when based on the same organizational structure as the Theosophical Society originally was; today the TS has an organizational structure which is a bit different, although the concept of freedom of thought still is a part of the basis of the Society and its activities. Religious dogmatism and fanatical religious views are of course in opposition to any genuine promulgation of altruism simply because those concepts rest on cravings for authority, something altruism obviously is in opposition to. (See for instance scientists like Anti-sect psychologist and those known as scientifically and psychologically educated Exit-counsellors on the latter view.)

b) The foreword by J. Godwin in the same book "The Masters Revealed" says also on page xviii in "The Masters Revealed" by K. Paul Johnson, (1994):
”To doctrinaire Theosophists, the revelations and theories of parts 2 and 3 will be less welcome. 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 figured: Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh. With the skill of a detective, he unearths HPB’s and Olcott’s relations with these men, and explains why they were thought so important as to be dignified in this way. "

Morten Nymann says:
But again, we find that there are quite a number of other members of the Theosophical Society who claimed that they had meet one or both of the two masters in mention – and met them in the physical. And none of them later on revealed Blavatsky as a liar in this regard. Not even the outsider and non-theosophical W. T. Brown who later became a Catholic Priest. He admitted seeing Master KH (as I see it falsely named Takhar Singh by K. Paul Johnson), and never claimed that Master KH did not resemble the later portrait of him.
(See W. T. Brown's own views on this in his own writing, here: Occultism in India By William T. Brown; 1887 - or a more full account here - MY LIFE by W. T. BROWN; 1885 - posted on Theos-talk forum)

So how can a scientist doing honest research reach the conclusion that these two masters merely were fictions without doing a proper research into this field of evidence or claims? - These views and claims in the book constitute therefore a conclusion resting on no solid ground; and are seemingly based on a materialistic point of view and not a philosophical point of view allowing paranormal phenomenon to be equally examined. And these facts of others claiming to have witnessed the Master in the physical, while H. P. Blavatsky was absent, are not covered in the book by K. Paul Johnson. Therefore the research is scientifically not very objective in this respect. And since it is a central theme of the book to seek to give such an evidence, one can hardly call the book a real a objective open-minded scientific research of facts. This is therefore, as I see it, another reason for not publishing this book through the Theosophical Society.

c) Documentation on coinciding the term ”theosophy” with the teachings of Blavatsky – are to be seen on page 1-2 in "The Masters Revealed" by K. Paul Johnson, (1994).
By doing this one is clearly showing ignorance about what the term ”theosophy” originally meant in the Theosophical Society. Or simply ignore the facts about it. (See for instance PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHICULES; BCW, Vol. XI, . p. 434-435 and more.) One is thereby plastering the Theosophical Society with being a sect, ie. an organisation with leaders forwarding doctrines on behalf of the members. And this alone could make one reject the publication of the book by K. Paul Johnson.
Page 1 says it all with the first words in upper case:
”THE MODERN THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT is based on teachings that Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (HPB) claimed to have received from living men she called adepts, Masters, or Mahatmas. "

Morten Nymann says:
Such a false view forwarded by an author claiming to do (objective?) scientific research is alone in itself one reason for not having the book published by the Theosophical Society. Well as far as I am concerned. And I think a number of other seekers would agree with me on this. And to base ones book on this false premise and view is evidently ending in hopelessly distorted and untrue results. I will again repeat what I wrote in the beginning of this article, simply because the non-sectarian concept of the Theosophical Society was and still is so much misunderstood by journalists, scientists, and New Age seekers, and seekers af almost any kind.

The original the Theosophical Society was an absolutely non-sectarian organization its Constitution and Rules given in 1890-1891 was saying:
”The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian, and no assent to any formula of belief, faith or creed shall be required as a qualification of membership; but every applicant and member must lie in sympathy with the effort to create the nucleus of an Universal Brotherhood of Humanity. "



1. Any Fellow who shall in any way attempt to involve the Society In political disputes shall be immediately expelled.
2. No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrinas being that advanced, or advocated by the Society.”
(See The TS Convention Report, January 1890-1891; Page 33 in the PDF, or page 65 in the journal)

The French Theosophist, Countess Caithness, member of the Theosophical Society since 1876 wrote very precisely about what "Theosophy" is and was in one of her books and papers. Se the quote just below.

Countess Caithness wrote the following:
"True Theosophy studies all religions, but teaches none, leaving to each the right of finding Truth for himself.",
("The Mystery of the Age", 1887, p. xviii.)

And failing to understand, that the Theosophical Society originally operated like this, will, as I see it, alone likely prevent the book “The Masters Revealed” by K. Paul Johnson from being published by the Theosophical Society. Any comments?

d) Page 2 in "The Masters Revealed" by K. Paul Johnson, (1994) also says:
”Most notable among the converts was the newspaper editor A. P. Sinnett...”

Morten Nymann says:
The Theosophical Society does not receive people as converts, as it it was converts to a sect, which the formulation by K. Paul Johnson clearly seek to make the average reader believe. I will again refer to the words just quoted by me in the above from the Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society. The Theosophical Society was clearly absolutely non-sectarian in its organizational structure, (no doctrines was forwarded on behalf of the Society by any leader or leaders). And to become a member thereof one did not need to convert to a belief in any master, or, reject ones own religious beliefs. The only requirements were an expressed willingness to be in sympathy with the truth-seeking objects of the Society and its noble non-sectarian cause while attempting the promulgation of altruism among people of very diverse creeds and religions, etc. etc. The motto of the Theosophical Society was after all: There is no Religion Higher than the Truth", just in case that some of the readers should have forgotten it or be unaware of it.

K. Paul Johnson here clearly fails to recognize this central aspect of the Theosophical Society. This is how I read these words and passages.

e) This same distorted view can be seen on many pages by K. Paul Johnson. Here is a reference showing the same:
--- ”By 1884, Theosophy had acquired many Indian disciples,...”, page 2

f) K. Paul Johnson says on page 5-6:
”When the flow of Mahatma letters was at its greatest, in the early 1880s, the society was affiliated with a Sikh reform organization, the Singh Sabha,....”.....”The Theosophical Society was also linked with other reform organizations, such as the Indian Association and the Indian National Congress, devoted to revival of Indian culture and the eventual attainment of national self-determination.”

Morten Nymann says:
The Theosophical Society was NEVER affiliated nor linked with the Indian National Congress in any manner what so ever in any public manner, in the years 1875-1891 – in the manner described by K. Paul Johnson. Just because some members of the Theosophical Society created the Indian National Congress it cannot in any manner imply that the Theosophical Society which as quoted in the above was non-political suddenly became political. There seems to be a confused opinion in the mind of the author K. Paul Johnson with regard to how an absolutely non-sectarian organization operates versus a sectarian one.

g) K. Paul Johnson wrote:
"But underlying these unanimous goals were various hidden agendas. That Masonic and Rosicrucian Masters behind the formation of the TS aimed at promoting HPB as a nineteenth-century successor to Cagliostro. Their main interest was in reviving Western occultism and opposing dogmatic Christianity. After arriving in India, HPB served a second hidden agenda defined by the maharajas and religious leaders with whom she was secretly allied. Broadly defined, their goals were Indian cultural revival and social reform"
("The Masters Revealed: and the Myth of the Great White Lodge", 1994, p. 7-8)

Morten Nymann says:
Here K. Paul Johnson based on no solid evidence else than his apparent suspicious(?) nature says that behind the objects of the Theosophical Society (which clearly were very noble and still are very noble and compassionate today, and non-sectarian, as repeated in the above by me) was another HIDDEN AGENDA of a nature based on some masters which K. Paul Johnson claim to be of a Masonry and Rosicrucian nature. (Which masters K. Paul Johnson refer to here is unclear since the two Masters KH and Morya whom K. Paul Johnson mention very often cannot be given such a stance in a dead-letter manner. Well unless one will call Esoteric Buddhists for Masons and Rosicrucians as well. But perhaps). - And - the hidden agenda - was according by K. Paul Johnson claimed to be to make H. P. Blavatsky into a new Cagliostro figure in the 19th century. This bold claim by K. Paul Johnson is not documented in any manner what so ever in his book the "The Masters Revealed". And this claim is forwarded despite the noble objects of the Society – and - K. Paul Johnson thereby clearly denigrate these noble objects as being less important than a Guru role of Blavatsky. This is a wholesale unjustified accusation. And it fails in understanding the central importance and object with the Theosophical Society, which was to counter the thought about authorities in religions and sects.

And failing to understand this will likely, as far as I understand it, alone prevent the book “The Masters Revealed” by K. Paul Johnson from being published by the present day Theosophical Society.

And more could be given. All of the above was written for the sake of truth and altruism, and not to put anyone down, and to defend the truth, and the Theosophical Society from what I view as its opponents.

Misunderstandings do occur when people exchange words in writing. Let us at least seek to improve and help each other.

All the above are of course merely my views. I will heartily welcome any well meant improvements upon the above.

Copyright © 2001 | M. Nymann -