Theos-Talk Archives (July 1995 Message tl00033)

Well, I have received the July, 1995 issue of THEOSOPHICAL
HISTORY containing Dr.  John Algeo's 15 page review of Paul
Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED.  This review points out the
strengths as well as the weaknesses of Johnson's book.  The
review is spendidly written.

I believe that the criticisms of Johnson's thesis concerning the
Theosophical Masters are valid.  I do hope that Paul Johnson will
attempt to deal with the issues raised by Dr.  Algeo in a future
issue of THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY.  I hope that Johnson will try to
rise above his own "kama-manas" reactions and will deal with the
basic issues in a scholarly fashion.  If Johnson will attempt to
do this, he may learn something and certainly interested students
and readers may also learn something.  Isn't that what diallogue
is all about?

I have re-read my own Part I of Johnson's MASTERS REVEALED posted
a week or so ago on Theos-l.  Despite what Johnson's comments
that the review is an attack on the kama-manas level, I believe
that the issues raised are worthy of consideration.  It is too
bad that Johnson is not willing to comment on the issues raised.
Here is a chance for dialogue; although Johnson views it as
"attacks."

How many times much I repeat that personally I do not dislike
Paul Johnson, the human being.  Why should I? My worst criticisms
of P.J.'s book has been directed toward him as "author",
"writer", etc.

Several individuals have been upset with my criticisms of Boris
de Zirkoff's research (see my article on The Secret Doctrine Vol
III in the latest issue on THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST.  Again, my
criticisms are of B.deZ's literary statements and conclusions;
not of B.De.Z as a human being.

I am now planning to issue my review of THE MASTERS REVEALED in a
small pamphlet since I feel certain issues need to be documented
for the information of interested Theosophists, scholars,
editors, etc.  It would be interesting to have a dialogue, even a
lively debate with Johnson but if he is against such a course of
action, then so be it.  I will not be writing this review for
Johnson; he has had fairly full access to my criticisms (which he
initially requested from me).  I write for other interested,
thoughtful individuals who would like access to the other side of
the story.  Each will have to make up his or her minds.  Some may
finally agree with Johnson's thesis while others will see what I
am getting at and think otherwise.

Unfortunately, I still do NOT understand Johnson's reasoning
process on his thesis concerning K.H.  and M.  I am still in the
dark as to his intellectual, scholarly reply and answer to the
issues I have raised.  I hope that possibly in the pages of
THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY we may gain some understanding and insights
on these issues.  Actually I have gained a great deal from the
reading of Johnson's two books.  Although I think is thesis on
the Masters is "flapdoodle", his books and my attempt to
understand his thesis has made many things much more
understandable for me.  For that alone, I thank Paul Johnson.

Daniel Caldwell