Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00124)

According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU:
[PJ is misleading because he cites...]

> the Hares' book but is silent to the critiques written on the
book.  These critiques (Stokes) are not widely available.  I've
never seen a copy of the O.E.  Library Critic.  Nor have I seen
these criticisms summarized in another more accessible source.
There is a huge difference between suppressing information you
possess and not conveying information you don't possess.  Do you
acknowledge the difference? Some of my lack of information is due
to the hostility of those who possess it.  Rarity and
geographical inaccessibility of information is another obstacle.
Of course my study is limited; all are.  But a deliberate intent
to mislead? I ask that you withdraw the accusation.
> The Hare brothers declared that they had examined the originals of the
> Mahatma Letters and that they had discovered that HPB had
> physically written the letters.  Their examination of the letters
> was limited to just a few hours of inspection and as far as I
> know the Hare brothers were not versed and were not experts in
> handwriting.  In contrast, Dr.  Paul Kirk in 1963 (an individual
> which Paul Johnson does not mention in his book)

Because, again I don't know of him.

> and Dr. Vernon Harrison in 1986 both declare that HPB did NOT
> physically write the Mahatma Letters.  Both Dr.  Kirk and Dr.
> Harrison are handwrting experts.

I do cite Harrison's findings, and make it clear that I view the
Hares findings as biased.

  Also concerning writing style and syntax of the Mahatma Letters

> as compared to HPB's letters (for example, to Sinnett), Charles
> Marshall in a paper entitled "The Mahatma Letters---A Syntatic
> Investigation into the Possibilities of `Forgery' by Helena
> Petrovna Blavatsky...", published in *Viewpoint Aquarius, Oct.
> 1980, pp.  8-14, did a computer analysis of the

This is a really obscure article, and again, a journal I've
never encountered.  Nor have I seen anyone subsequently cite
it, which makes me wonder about how seriously scholars take
it.  Would like to see it.

> Unfortunately, Paul Johnson in THE MASTERS REVEALED does NOT
> allow his readers to know about this study by Marshall.

Gee, Dan, it sure seems like you are saying I am familiar with
the study, or had some kind of access to the journal in which
it appears.  How can I not allow something when I'm ignorant of
it?  It never has been reported on or discussed in TH or among
theosophical historians in my presence.

> I am planning to do a full-length critique of THE MASTERS
> REVEALED and the most distressing observation I can make about
> this book is that the author omits or downplays any evidence that
> would throw a monkey wrench into his various theories and
> hypotheses.

It is certainly a distressing "observation" because it is in fact
an unfair accusation.  You are entirely within your rights to
complain that I'm ignorant of certain evidence.

But your insinuations of active effort to suppress information in
order to distort the reader's understanding-- well, we're both
librarians so you should know just how dishonored I feel by that.

In his speculations on who the

> real historical personages are behind the personae of Koot Hoomi
> and Morya, the author omits probably more than 95% of the
> testimonies and evidence concerning the existence of the Masters.

Hmm.  Maybe a catalog is in order!  But many more testimonies
are presented in the sequel.  Might bring it to 10%!

How many of the readers of

> THE MASTERS REVEALED are knowledgable enought to know exactly
> what is not mentioned in Johnson's book?

Well, the author certainly isn't! You are suggesting that I
deliberately chose 5% of the evidence that supported preexisting
suppositions.  Whereas I reviewed the theosophical literature for
all evidence that might yield any correspondences with historical
records.  The small percentage that was relevant to my quest was
based on usefulness in terms of the kind of evidence rather than
because I was out to prove something.  All these identifications
occurred as I went along, on the basis of an open-minded search
through the literature.  To the extent that limitations of access
make the book limited, I welcome your corrections.  But don't
attack my honor as an author, a Theosophist and a librarian.

> I have spent 25 years collecting all of the first hand accounts
> concerning HPB's life and testimonies, etc.  concerning the HPB's
> Masters.  In the last few years, I have discovered a number of
> Koot Hoomi letters never published before as well as 2 MSS of HPB
> never published before.  It is very important that interested
> Theosophists and interested members of the public be made aware
> of ALL the evidence both pro and con concerning HPB and the
> Masters.  Unfortunately, THE MASTERS REVEAL, although a tresure
> trove of information, omits or downplays evidence and information
> that the reader should be aware of in order to make an informed
> opinion as to the validity or falsity of Paul Johnson's
> speculations and hypotheses.

Check it out folks, and see for yourselves.

> My critique will document all of this and more in great detail.
> I hope publish it as a pamphlet and also to make a copy avaialble
> on Theos-L.

This is wonderful.  As someone who has made a specialty of
collecting such material, you have a special role to play.  But
before condemning me as you have, consider that I went all the
way to India, hoping to see Olcott's diaries, and was not allowed
to.  Then you lambasted me (in mail from last year) for not
having used that source which you somehow obtained a copy of!
"Good" Theosophists have a much easier time of getting access to
such material apparently.  I salute you for having accumulated
such an archive.  But you aren't the first person to slam me for
not using information to which I never had access.  And you know
very well why such access has been hard to get, since you
yourself spoke of wild accusations that I was a tool of dugpas or
Jesuits.

Every book is limited in the information it conveys.  Every
research trail misses some useful material because of
geographical, ideological, etc.  barriers.  But not every author
is out to deliberating distort the presentation of the evidence
in order to prove a preexisting set of hypotheses! And I ask you
to withdraw this accusation.