Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00133)

Reply to Paul Johnson

I would like to briefly reply to Paul Johnson's comments on my
brief critique of certain items in his book THE MASTERS REVEALED.

To begin with, I would like to remind everyone on Theos-l that
almost 2 months ago, I wrote a brief "review" of THE MASTERS
REVEALED and I belive [correction: believe] I said complimenetary
things about the book and, in fact, I urged every Theosophist
reading my words to obtain and read Paul Johnson's book.

I still stand by what I wrote then.

In my recent, more critical posting on Paul Johnson's book, I
pointed out certain weaknesses of the book.  If I seemed to
attack Paul Johnson as a *person* then I am sorry for that.

My comments were directed to Paul Johnson as the *author* of the
book.  It must be remembered that Paul has written this book in
which he has embodied *his* ideas, *his* hypotheses, *his*
statements, *his* evaluations , *his* "statements" of facts, etc.
*His* book is, in reality, his brain child, his mind-born
creation.  Therefore, it is almost impossible to criticize *his*
book without in someway referring to the man Paul Johnson.
Therefore, if I criticize anyone it is Paul Johnson *the writer*
of the book and NOT Paul Johnson *the human being*.  I believe
there is a vital distinction here and not merely a play of words!

I do not attribute any bad motive to Paul Johnson.  On the
contrary, I believe his is a likable guy.  Therefore, as far as I
am concerned, we could erase Paul's name from the title page of
his book and replace his name with an X.  In other words,
regardless of who authored the book, let us judge the ideas and
statements in the book based on their own merits *regardless of
who wrote them*! Are the statements accurate, true, fair, etc.?

Now briefly, looking at some of my statements concerning Paul and
his book:

I said for example: ...Paul Johnson does NOT mention in his
message and ..he does NOT mention in his book.....I find it
somewhat misleading that Paul Johnson mentions the Hares' book
but is silent to the critiques written on the book."

Yes, I do find it somewhat misleading, especially to the reader
that the author is silent about the critiques on the Hare book.
Did Paul consciously intend to mislead his readers? I hope not,
and am relieved to find out that such is not the case.  But when,
for example, Paul in reply to my criticism writes: "These
critiques (Stokes) are not widely available.  I've never seen a
copy of the O.E.  Library Critic....", does this excuse the
"author" for not, at least mentioning them? Fourteen years before
THE MASTERS REVEALED published, Bruce Campbell in his ANCIENT
WISDOM REVIVED: A History of the Theosophical Movement (1980)
writes in his Notes to Chapter 3 of and on "The Masters and
Theosophical Teachings" (pp.  212-214) "...Stokes wrote a total
of ten articles reviewing the Hare book; they began with the
June-July issue of the *Library Critic*..." and he cites the
Stoke's article as follows: "H.N.  Stokes, `Did H.P.  Blavatsky
Write These Mahatma Letters?' *The O.E.  Library Critic* 24
(August-September 1936): 1-6." These words just quoted are part
of a biblography on "the controversy about the Mhatmas." and the
citation about Stokes is listed under the heading "Theosophical
defenses..."

Now the Bruce Campbell book is listed in the bibliography of Paul
Johnson's book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS (1990) and also in his
THE MASTERS REVEALED (1994).  So the Stokes citation is not that
obscure! And as regards the availability of the *O.E.  Library
Critic*, this journal can be located in a number of locations,
including Theosophical organizations.

In research methodology, one is taught to do a literature search
on the subject one is intending to write on in order to
familiarize oneself with what others have already discovered ,etc
about the subject.  I believe I was taught this procedure as an
undergraduate in college.  One need not be a "scholar" to realize
the importance of this kind of literature search.

Again, I was taught even as an undergraduate that when you read a
book or an article, you should also look for reviews and other
commentaries on that particular book.  This is part of the
learning process.

For example, when I read books on parapsychology, I always look
for reviews and critiques in the various parapsychological
journals as well as the popular press.  These reviews can provide
one with other perspectives, etc.

Bruce Campbell in his notes gives the interested reader access to
various critiques of the Hare brothers' book.  Unfortunately, THE
MASTERS REVEALED does not aid the reader in this direction.

Moving on.....

When I mention Dr.  Paul Kirk and Paul Johnson replies: "...I
don't know of him", I am even more surprised!

I guess that Paul has never read Victor Endersby's THE HALL OF
MAGIC MIRRORS (1969) where Dr.  Kirk's important letter is
published.  It is also printed in one or two issues of Victor
Endersby's THEOSOPHICAL NOTES in the early 1960s.  But what
suprises me even more is that Dr.  Kirk and his handwritng
analysis of certain Mahatma Letters is written about by Cylvia
Cranston in her 1993 biography of HPB and Paul listed this
Cranston bio.  in his book THE MASTERS REVEALED and even at least
twice from the Cranston bio.  See p.  274.  [Correction: "Cylvia"
should be "Sylvia".  Also in the last sentence the latter part
should read: "...and Paul even quoted at least twice from the
Cranston bio.  See p.  274 of Cranston's bio.  on HPB."]

Again, when I wrote: "Unfortunately, Paul Johnson in THE MASTERS
REVEALED does NOT allow his readers to know about this study by
[Charles] Marshall." , Paul replies: "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 [Theosophical History] or among
theosophical historians in my presence."

So Paul admits he is ignorant of the existence of this article?
Yet in the same Cranston biography of HPB, p.  274, a whole
paragraph is devoted to summarizing the findings of Marshall.
And in the index to the Cranston biography, under the entry
"Mahatma Letters..." the title of this article is given plus the
page number.  Again Ted G.  Davy in an article entitled:

"Computer Vindicates Blavatsky," writes about Marshall's
findings.  See the theosophical magazine "The Canadian
Theosophist", Nov.-Dec., 1980, pp.  97-98.  And copies of
"Viewpoint Aquarius" in which the Marshall article appeared can
be found in some Theosophical libraries.

All I am suggesting is that the author of THE MASTERS REVEALED
when writing the section on "Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?" (see
pp.  174-175) would have done himself a favor and certainly a
favor to his readers if he had followed up the sources mentioned
in Cranston's biography of HPB.  Instead, readers of that section
will not be well informed and in fact will be given a very
one-sided, incomplete treatment concerning the Mahatma Letters.
Furthermore, probably 99 readers out of every 100 who read that
section will have not idea where to go to find more information
both pro and con on the subject discussed.  [Correction: "...will
have not idea where..."

And finally, when I wrote: "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 in to
his various theories and hypotheses."

To my statement, Paul replies: "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."

My reply is: I cannot get inside your mind and see the workings
of your minds.  I am glad to know that you are not consciously
and with an "active effort" attempting to suppress information,
but at the same time the fact remains that you quote only that
evidence which you feel supports your speculations on the
identities of Koot Hoomi and Morya.  And as anyone can verify who
will read your book you do not make your readers aware of any
evidence that would show your speculations to be way off the
mark.  [Correction: "I cannot get inside your mind and see the
workings of your mind...."]

In my two letters to you in 1993 (letters which you solicited
from me), I quoted pages after page of evidence which would
suggest that your speculations on KH and Morya were as inadequate
to explain the facts concerning the Masters as Richard Hodgsonn's
"explanations" were in 1885- 1886.

I thank you for mentioning me in your Acknowledgments page as
follows:

"Daniel Caldwell provided helpful criticisms of my
identifications of Morya and Koot Hoomi."

Unfortunately, your readers will not have access to my "helpful
criticisms." And only a well versed student of early Theosophical
history will be aware of the testimonies that refute your "House
of Cards" speculations on the two Theosophical Masters.

Enough for now.

I again urge readers on Theos-l to buy and read Paul's book.  The
book does have its merits and it is a treasure trove of
information.  Unfortunately the uninformed reader can be easily
misled by the incomplete and one-sided treatment of many
important issues that the book attempts to address.  Maybe in a
new edition of this work, these defects will be corrected.

I will attempt to do a critique of the book especially on Paul's
speculations concerning the identities of Koot Hoomi and Morya.
This will probably take several months since I am preoccupied
with other duties that must first be taken care of.

Daniel

Daniel H. Caldwell