Theos-Talk Archives (June 1995 Message tl00110)

PART I by Daniel H. Caldwell

I will forward my comments on Paul Johnson's books in various
parts over a period of time.  At a later date I plan to issue a
complete paper version copy of my comments for circulation to
various individuals.

K.  Paul Johnson's book entitled THE MASTERS REVEALED available
from SUNY Press.  The price for a paperback copy is $16.95;
hardbound, $49.50.  The easiest way to order it is through SUNY
customer service number 1-607- 277-2211 using your VISA,
MasterCard, American Express or Discover.There is a postage and
handling fee for $3 for U.S.  and Canadian residents.  Please
call the above number for more details.

A number of reviews have already appeared of THE MASTERS REVEALED
including one in THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW.  Another review
by Joy Mills was publihsed in THE QUEST MAGAZINE.  In the latest
issue (Late Spring/Early Summer 1995) of THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST
appears a review written by Dr.  John Algeo.  Dr.  Algeo in the
AT review mentions that a detailed review (also by Dr.  Algeo)
will appear in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY in the July, 1995 issue.
Those who are interested in obtaining a copy of this TH review
and also possibly subscribing to THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY, should
contact the TH editor who is Dr.  James Santucci.  His e-mail
address is: JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU I repeat the e-mail
address: JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU

His regular address is:

Dr. James A. Santucci
Department of Religious Studies
California State University
Fullerton, CA 92634-9480
U.S.A.

Telephone:  714-773-3727

Fax:  714-449-5820 or 714-773-3990

I believe the subscription for one year (4 issues) to U.S.
residents is $15.00.  But please check with Dr.  Santucci.  Also
for subscriptins outside the U.S., please check with Dr.
Santucci for details on exact amount of subscription, etc.

In Joscelyn Godwin's Foreword to Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED,
one find the following:

"The theme of this book is that HPB's Masters were not the
Himalayan sages whom she invented to distract her
co-workers....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 figures: Ranbir Singh and Thakar.  With the
skill of a detective, he unearths HPB's and Olcott's relations
with these men...." (p.  xviii)

Paul Johnson himself writes his "Introduction" to the book (pp.
5-6):

"Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, founding president of the Amritsar
Singh Sabha, corresponds in intriguing ways to clues about Koot
Hoomi's identity in the writings of Olcott and HPB....  "Maharaja
Ranbir Singh of Kashmir has many correspondences to Morya as
described by HPB....  "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...."

Let us take note of several things in these 2 statements by Dr.
Godwin and Mr.  Johnson.

First, Dr.  Godwin assures us that Johnson's identifications of
M.  and K.H.  are "suggestions", just suggestions.  But Johnson
himself tells us thta he has made *a persuasive case* (I added
the *s in Johnson's quote) for these identifications.  It seems
to me that there is a significant difference between
"suggestions" and "persuasive case".  Which is it? I will go with
Paul Johnson's description of his effort: "a persuasive case."

It is also interesting to compare what John Cooper says in his
review of THE MASTERS REVEALED which was published in the March
1995 (pp.  15-16) issue of THEOSOPHY IN AUSTRALIA.  Cooper
writes: "I believe that Paul would be the first to agree that he
has not proved his theory.  He has, however, argued it well...."

It is unclear to me whether Cooper refers to Johnson's theory
concerning KH and M and to something else in Johnson's book.  I
believe Cooper is referring to the theory concerning the
identities of M and KH.

Anyway, Johnson would probably agree with Cooper that he has not
"proven" his theory but Johnson himself tells his readers that he
has made *a persuasive case*.  And such wording would indicate
more than offering suggestions as Dr.  Godwin phrases it.

In other words, Johnson appears to be at least fairly convinced
that he is on to something and is convinced (to a certain degree
) that his theory as to the identities of M.  and K.H.  is the
correct one.  Johnson has maintained this same theory in his
previous book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, in his present book THE
MASTERS REVEALED and will continue (so I am told) to maintain
this theory in his new book INITIATES OF THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS to
be released in late August, 1995.

Let us now look at his "persuasive case":

Dr.  Algeo in his AT review mentioned above writes:

"In fact, Johnson's identifications [of six Adepts including KH
and M] are unsupported by the thin evidence he is able to
marshal.  The rhetoric of his presentation disguises the weakness
of the evidence, perhaps even from Johnson himself....an
uncritical reader is likely to assume...that Johnson has
established his identifications at least with a reasonable degree
of plausibililty.  He has not.  The questions here is not one of
`belief' in HPB's veracity or the existence of her adepts.  The
question is rather whether Johnson has produced evidence that is
relevant, reliable, and adequate in support of his thesis or
belief."

Algeo also writes: "But its [the book's] character flaw is that
it pretends to have established some specific identifications
that it has not established at all, and which in fact are at best
improbable and in some cases ludicrous."

Compare what Algeo has written with what Johnson says about
establishing "a persuasive case."

I am told that Dr.  Algeo in his detailed review to appear in
THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY will give the details to support his
summation of Johnson's thesis.

In my own research on Johnson's IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS as well
as on his current book THE MASTERS REVEALED, I too have come to a
similar conclusion to Algeo's.  My conclusion has been based upon
a careful study of the many primary source documents concerning
the Master KH and M.

As I read Johnson's books I am struck with the fact that Johnson
does NOT grapple with or even mention the whole array of evidence
that would indicate that his *persuasive case* falls apart like a
house of cards.

For example, Richard Hodgson's case (of 1885) against HPB may
seem pretty convincing if you only have access to what he
presents in the pages of his Report.  But if you start searching
for more evidence and facts *outside* the pages of Hodgson's
Report, you may start to doubt the validity of Hodgson's thesis.
In dealing with the testimonies concerning the existence of the
Masters, Hodgson omits or downplays, for example, Col.  Olcott's
testimony to what I would call are the *close encounters* Olcott
had with the Masters.  Therefore, it has been my opinion that
Hodgson is not dealing with these issues in a fair, open and just
manner.  Hodgson does not allow his readers access to vital
information that might throw doubt on his own interpretation of
HPB's claims about the Masters.  I believe that the same
criticism can be made concerning Paul Johnson's so-called
"persuasive case" concerning Morya and Koot Hoomi.

Johnson claims that the Master Morya presented to the world, the
public is a fictional persona and that behind this persona one
can identify Ranbir Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir.

Note well that Johnson makes two claims: (1) that there was this
"fictional persona" and that (2) one can make an identification
of Ranbir Singh as the origin for this "fictional character"
known as Morya.

And anyone who reads the chapter in the MASTERS REVEALED on
Ranbir Singh will probably notice that almost all of Johnson's
"evidence" is vague, indirect, etc.

Yet in this chapter on Ranbir Singh, Johnson does NOT deal with
the numerous people who testified to seeing Morya either in his
physical body or in his "astral body".  Readers of his book are
kept in ignorance of these numerous encounters.

I will detail just a few of these encounters and ask Johnson and
interested readers of his book how do you grapple with these
encounters in light of your thesis that "Morya" as such was a
fictional character and Ranbir Singh was the historical person
standing behind this persona?

Example A:

In Col.  Henry S.  Olcott's handwritten diary for Tues, July 15,
1879, we find the following entry:

"Had visit in the body of the Sahib [Morya]!![He] sent Babula to
my room to call me to H.P.B.'s bungalow, and there we had a most
important interview...."

In a letter written by Olcott to A.O.  Hume on Sept.  30, 1881,
Olcott describes this visit of Morya in greater detail:

"This same Brother once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming
in full day light, and on horseback.  He had me called by a
servant into the front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow....He came to
scold me roundly for something I had done in T.S.
matters....[H.P.B.} came over at once with a rush, and seeing him
dropped on her knees and paid him reverence.  My voice and his
had been heard by those in the other bungalow, but only HPB and
I, and the servant *saw* him."

Now how does Johnson explain or interpret this event?

And let the readers of this posting realize that Johnson does
"interpret" events.  We all do, but the question is: How does
Johnson interpret this one and how does he do it in comparison
with other similar events.

For example, on pp.  157-160, Johnson quotes Olcott's account
where the Master K.H.  comes to visit Olcott, W.T.  Brown and
Damodar on the outskirts of Lahore in Nov.  1883.  The Master
K.H.  in this event, Johnson believes, is really Thakar Singh
Sandhanwalia, ie.  the person behind the KH "persona." Note well
here that Johnson interprets Olcott's account of KH at Lahore as
a straight-forward account of Olcott telling the truth and
actually meeting a real flesh and blood "master" who Johnson
believes is Thakar Singh.

But would Johnson mention Olcott's similar account of Morya
riding up on horseback to T.S.  Headquarters in Bombay in 1879?
And more importantly how does Johnson "interpret" this encounter
with Morya? Is this Ranbir Singh, Maharraja of Kashmir, coming to
visit Olcott and HPB in Bombay?

Another example:

Olcott in his diary for Wed., Aug.  4, 1880 writes that Morya is
"here this evening." and in Olcott's OLD DIARY LEAVES, Vol.  2,
(1972), p.  208 says:

"On the evening of 4th Auguest, a Mahatma visited H.P.B.  and I
was called in to see him before he left.  He dictated a long and
important letter....  I was sent away before his visit
terminated....I left him sitting in H.P.B.'s room."

How would Johnson "interpret" this event?

In Johnson's book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, Johnson (not having
access to Olcott's handwritten diaries) was willing to believe
that this Master might be Jamal ad-Din "al-Afghani".  When in
correspondence with Johnson, I pointed out that Olcott says this
is M., i.e.  Morya, Johnson concedes he was wrong.  But he drops
this encounter with a Master in IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS.  But
how does he explain this historical encounter that Olcott and HPB
had with Master Morya in Bombay on Aug.  4, 1880?

How does this encounter fit in with Johnson's "persuasive case"
that "Morya" was but a fictional persona and behind this persona
was Ranbir Singh?

And there are numerous other times when "Morya" visited Olcott
and other Theosophists.  Johnson does NOT mention or grapple with
these testimonies? Why? I would suggest that Johnson ignores
these testimonies because if he took them at "face value" like he
does K.H.'s appearance to Olcott in Lahore, then his "persuasive
case" might start to crumble.

And it should be stated that on several occasions that the Master
Morya appeared at the T.S.  Headquarters at Adyar, Madras, India
and that several people at the same time saw him.  Who is this
"Morya" at Adyar? A "persona" walking around? Is this "Morya"
seen by witnesses at Adyar Ranbir Singh? Unfortunately (at least
for Johnson's readers), THE MASTERS REVEALED does not let its
readers know about the cases I have cited above.  And there are
dozens of other examples I could give from the primary source
documents.

Johnson's thesis is totally unconvincing to me because he fails
to mention or seriously grapple with all these testimonies.  I
would suggest that these testimonies seriously invalidate his
so-called "persuasive case."

Instead, he has come up with his thesis, based on weak, indirect
evidence which he gives a prominent place in his book and then
totally ignores vital, numerous pieces of evidence and testimony
that shows that his thesis his identifications (as Algeo phrases
it) "are at best improbable and in some cases ludicrous.

Continued in Part II.