Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00160)

Part II of Message by Daniel Caldwell:

I will now respond to various comments made by Paul Johnson
(hereafter PJ) and Jerry HE (JHE).

PJ writes:

> The rest of the weekend was spent trying to deal with the
> distress caused his [Dan's] comments....

DC's reply:

It was not my intention to cause PJ any psychological distress.
Much of the criticism posted here had been included and touched
upon in my two letters of 1993 in which I took some of PJ's
contentions to task.  I would have thought that by now PJ would
have developed a thick skin to the various criticisms of
Theosophists.  But again as I said in my last posting if I
criticize PJ it is directed toward the author PJ and not to PJ
the person the human being.  So PJ shouldn't take my criticisms
on a personal level.  Because I am much more concerned with the
validity of PJ's ideas, hypotheses, etc.  "Are the hypotheses
concerning the Masters M and KH as outlined in THE MASTERS
REVEALED true?" "Are PJ's hypotheses on the Masters more probable
than Richard Hodgson's hypotheses?" etc etc etc

PJ writes:

> The evidence that is deemed relevant to my inquiry is thus only a
> tiny proportion of what Dan Caldwell would deem relevant to the
> question of the Masters.  ONLY evidence that is specific about
> places, names and/or times, e.g.  about physical trips to or
> encounters with the Masters, is relevant.  (the shoreline).  All
> the mayavi rupa appearances, paranormal letters, etc.  are
> irrelevant to my quest because they lead nowhere in terms of
> identifying the historical Masters.  (The depths) Only clues that
> actually lead somewhere are pursued, and all the paranormal stuff
> is bracketed as having no usefulness to the very specific
> research project of identifying the historical individuals from
> whom HPB derived information, inspiration, and guidance....

DC's reply:

Yes, I can see the distinction although I believe the historian
has to grapple with the paranormal in HPB's life and in relation
to the Masters.  But much of my criticism of how PJ (the author!)
handles his material has nothing to do with the paranormal.  In
PJ's quoted above, he mentions:

> ONLY evidence that is specific about places, names and/or times,
> e.g., about physical trips to or encounters with the Masters, is
> relevant.

Later (in another message) I will focus in on these "physical"
trips to or encounters with the Masters that are "specific" about
places, names and/or times.  I belive I covered much of this
ground in my 1993 letters and these criticisms had nothing to do
with the "paranormal." We will separate the material into two
categories: (1) the "physical" and (2) the paranormal.  And then
focus in on the specifics about physical trips to or encounters
with the Masters.  But in both IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS and THE
MASTERS REVEALED statements are made about certain paranormal
aspects and these should also be scruntized.

PJ writes:

> No one who dealt with me during the process of writing and
> research would believe that there was some set of hypotheses I
> was out to prove, and that my search for new evidence was
> insincere.  If that had been the case, the book would not have
> metamorphized a dozen times in the two years that most of the
> writing was done, nor would it have continued to change radically
> for several more years.  There is a large and respectable group
> of witnesses I could call on for verifiction that the book was in
> continual and totally unpredictable flux during the period I was
> supposedly twisting all the evidence to support prexisting
> conclusions.....

DC's reply:

Before the publication of IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, I saw 2, 3,
maybe 4 different versions of your MSS.  And yes, you were
constantly changing many things.  But in all those MSS (which I
saw) your speculations on the identities of the people behind the
personae were very identical to what you eventually published in
1990.  And I believe you have not changed your speculations on
these individuals in THE MASTERS REVEALED.

Correction to the above paragraph:
"But in all those MSS (which I saw) your speculations on the
identities of the people behind the personae of Koot Hoomi and
Morya were very similar if not identical to what you eventually
published in 1990...."

Yes, one of my major criticisms of your hypotheses concerning
Morya & Koot Hoomi has to do with the fact that you fail to
mention evidence that would knock a hole (if not several) into
your speculations.  Does this lead to the conclusion that you are
"insincere"? Maybe, Maybe not.  I am not really concerned with
that "conclusion" one way or the other.  But I think I can show
that (for what reasons) in your books evidence to the contrary is
omitted.  Maybe you are ignorant of the material or don't see the
relevance or whatever.  I don't know since I can't read your
mind.

But you yourself have criticized Theosophical writers on the same
issue.  In your first letter to me of Jan.  23, 1993 you bring
this subject up to me.  And in my reply of April 7, 1993, I
wrote:

"In your letter to me of Jan.  23, you criticize `every
Theosophical book about HPB' for [among other things]
'suppression of inconvenient information.' Yet one could also
accuse you of suppressing `inconvenient information' that doesn't
fit your `hypotheses' concerning the true identities of the
Masters."

And I then proceed to give examples.

Were you accusing all these Theosophical writers of being
"insincere" and "twisting all the evidence to support preexisting
conclusions"? And, I believe, that in several reviews of
bigraphies on HPB you have written similar statements about said
biographers.  I wonder if they were "distressed" by your
criticisms.  This is all really beside the point.  Nevertheless,
if you can criticize other people's productions and even state
that "suppression of inconvenient information" has occurred, is
it not fair to ask that same question about your literary work?

And after I sent my criticisms to you in the letter dated April
7, 1993, you wrote a reply.  And in my answer to your reply, I
said:

"...it is not my intention to be adversail with you.  No doubt,
you are a sincere individual who has devoted alot of hard work
and money to your research.  I can and do appreciate that.  But
if you want my honest opinion, then I must give it to you."

"Also in your letter to me of April 14th, you seem to think I
have not been fair and objective in my criticism of your book;
you also question my motivation.  On this score all I will say is
that I have given my criticisms of your thesis and *you shold be
able to assess the validity of my criticisms , regardless of my
own motivations."

I believe I was attempting to be frank, honest and
straightforward with you during that correspondence.  And I was
not "distressed" when you questions my own motivations.  Maybe I
have a thicker skin than you do.

I hope if we get this "seminar" going that we will not regress
into all this "personal" stuff which leads to side issues and
only obscures the real issues, the historical issues, the
evidence issue, etc.  etc.

I plan to avoid the personal stuff as much as humanly possible in
future discussions on Theos-l.  I have already seen the "flames"
being directed towards you and JHE over the Leadbeater
controversies.  Little of substance was accomplished due to the
fact that several members on Theos-l were "distressed" by
negative comments made about CWL.  Of course, the basic issue was
whether the "negative" comments were in fact true or false.  The
focus of discussion should have been on the evidence, discussing
it and weighing it and NOT on the *distress* of certain
individuals who more or less refused to *study* and *discuss* the
issues and evidence.  Of course, that is there [Correction: Of
course, that is their right to refuse to study and discuss the
subject.] That is why I suggested several months ago that such
controversial subjects might best be confined to a different
forum (like Theos-Roots) so that those who wanted to discuss the
matter could do so and those who are bored by such matter or
"distressed" by such matter could go their own way.

I want to comment on PJ's statement: "But Dan's criticism reminds
me of a scary warning given by M.  Gomes at the Chicago AAR
conference...." etc.  But I will do this in a later message.

I hope a number of Theos-l members will want to pursue the "In
Search of the Masters" seminar.  I believe PJ's thesis and book
are worthy of serious study and discussion.

Daniel