Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00545)

PART IV of Caldwell's article on Johnson's thesis follows:

 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PAUL JOHNSON'S THESIS =

 CONCERNING MORYA AND KOOT HOOMI, =

 PART IV

 by Daniel H. Caldwell

In Part III of this series, I asked Paul Johnson a whole series
of questions concerning what he had previously written in
response to my Part II. He has now informed me in a *private* e-
mail message that he has no intention of trying to answer these
questions since he feels my review of his thesis is some sort of
game, etc. I will continue the series with or without Johnson's
participation, because I believe that there are many statements
in Johnson's writings on the thesis concerning Morya and Koot
Hoomi that need to be carefully examined.

In Part II, I presented Colonel Henry Olcott's account of meeting
the Master Morya on July 15, 1879. I want to quote again
Olcott's testimony in which he states that the Master Morya came
on horseback to Bombay T.S. headquarters:

(Document 1) "[I] had visit in 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 private interview...." (Extract from
Colonel Olcott's handwritten diary for July 15, 1879)

(Document 2) "This same Brother [Morya] 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 (she being at the time in the other bungalow talking
with those who were there). He came to scold me roundly for
something I had done in T.S. matters, and as H.P.B. was also to
blame, he *telegraphed* to her to come, that is to say he turned
his face and extended his finger in the direction of the place
she was in. She 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 H.P.B.
and I, and the servant *saw* him." (Extract from a letter
written by Colonel Olcott to A.O. Hume on Sept. 30, 1881.)

(Document 3) "MR. MYERS [speaking to Colonel Olcott]: We want
now an account of seeing your Teacher in the flesh.
COLONEL OLCOTT [in reply]: One day at Bombay I was at work in my
office when a Hindu servant came and told me that a gentleman
wanted to see me in Madame Blavatsky's bungalow---a separate
house within the same enclosure as the main building. This was
one day in 1879. I went and found alone there my Teacher. =

Madame Blavatsky was then engaged in animated conversation with
other persons in the other bungalow. The interview between the
Teacher and myself lasted perhaps 10 minutes, and it related to
matters of a private nature with respect to myself and certain
current events in the history of the Society.....
MR. MYERS [asking Olcott another question]: How do you know that
your Teacher was in actual flesh and blood on that occasion?
COLONEL OLCOTT [replies]: He put his hand upon my head, and his
head was perfectly substantial; and he had altogether the
appearance of an ordinary person. When he walked about the floor
there was noise of his footsteps....He came to our place on
horseback....
MR. MYERS [with another question]: Was that the only occasion on
which you have seen him in the flesh?
COLONEL OLCOTT: No; I have seen him at other times.
MR. MYERS: Have you seen him three or four times in the flesh?
COLONEL OLCOTT: Yes, more than that, but not under circumstances
where it would be evidence for others.
MR. MYERS: And about how many times [have you seen him] in the
astral body?
COLONEL OLCOTT: Oh, at least 15 or 20 times.
MR. MYERS: And his appearance on all those occasions has been
quite unmistakable?
COLONEL OLCOTT: As unmistakable as the appearance of either of
you gentlemen."
(Extracts from the interview Olcott had with members of the =

London S.P.R. Committee appointed to investigate Theosophical
phenomena in the Spring of 1884)

In light of Johnson's "suggestion" (to paraphrase Joscelyn
Godwin, see p. xviii of Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED) that the
Mahatma Morya is a fictitious Tibetan persona that conceals a
well-documented historical figure---Ranbir Singh; or
(to paraphrase Johnson's own words, see p. 6 of MASTERS REVEALED)
since Maharajah Ranbir Singh of Kashmir has many correspondences
to Morya as described by HPB and although much of HPB's portrayal
of Morya was designed to mislead in order to protect their
privacy, enough accurate information was included to make a
persuasive case for Morya's identity as this historical figure
(i.e. Ranbir Singh.), IN LIGHT OF THESE STATEMENTS, I ASK: what
is a historian to make of Colonel Olcott's above quoted testimony
of the Master Morya riding up on horseback to Bombay T.S.
Headquarters on July 15, 1879?

I have asked Johnson several times: was this gentleman who
rode up on horseback to T.S. headquarters, Maharajah Ranbir
Singh? And in his latest answer (Oct 16, 1995) Johnson replies: =

"I don't regard it as impossible, but implausible. [I] Could not
find evidence as to Ranbir's whereabouts at the time, but at any
rate he was unlikely to travel alone."

Yes, I agree with Johnson, the Maharajah of Kashmir, the monarch
of a kingdom, would probably not travel alone but in fact would
probably travel with his guards, servants, etc. Furthermore, if
Ranbir travelled all the way from Kashmir to Bombay, his visit
would be documented in historical records such as the various
Indian newspapers. So the perceptive individual might ask: =

Well, is something wrong here? Could Johnson's hypothesis
(concerning Ranbir Singh/Morya) be incorrect? Or is something
wrong with Colonel Olcott's testimony?

Johnson in his latest comments (Oct. 16, 1995) also says that
this July 1879 account of Morya coming to see Olcott is "of
little use in providing a historical identification....If you
want to use it as weight against another identification [like
Johnson's own Ranbir Singh's identification?]....fine. But it
lacks much weight when there is no confirmation of the
account..."

Let us scrutinize very carefully Johnson's words. We know from
other sources that the name "Morya" is a pseudonym or an
initiatic name and is not the "birth name" of Morya. I used to
know a man whose name was Sarmad; but this was not his birth
name. Sarmad was his initiation name which he received when he
became a Sufi. Most of his friends knew him as "Sarmad;" I can't
even remember his real name!

Johnson writes that this July 1879 encounter is "of little use in
providing a historical identification" of Morya. And I would
agree that this account by Olcott does not tell us the real name
of Morya. *But unless one has a skeptical reason for discounting
Olcott's account*, Olcott's testimony places the physical man,
known by his "pseudonym" Morya, at 108 Girgaum Back Road, Bombay
on July 15, 1879. Now possibly Paul Johnson has a skeptical
reason for discounting Olcott's account, but if so, what is the
reason? One possibility might be that Johnson knows that if
Morya was at Bombay on that particular day, this would show that
Ranbir Singh is *not* the Master Morya.

In the latter part of Johnson's comment quoted above, he says:
"If you want to use it [the account of July 1879] against another
identification...fine. But it [the account] lacks much weight
when there is no confirmation of the account."

What does Johnson mean by "...when there is no confirmation of
the account."? Confirmation of the account by finding some
document that will lead to the Master's "real name"? Or does
Johnson imply by "confirmation of the account" that there should
be some other person or persons (non-theosophical??) who saw the
Master at Girgaum Back Road on that date?

Would Johnson take HPB's testimony as "confirmation of the
account"? HPB in a letter dated April 3, 1886 to Franz Hartmann
testifies: "When we arrived [in India], and Master [Morya]
coming to Bombay bodily, paid a visit to us at Girgaum....Olcott
became crazy. He was like Balaam's she-ass when she saw the
angel!...."

Johnson himself (see p. 10 of THE MASTERS REVEALED) quotes from
this same H.P.B. letter, but deletes the just-quoted passage and
paraphrases it: "...Olcott met one [Master] in person at
Bombay...." And in another section of THE MASTERS REVEALED (p.
144-145) Johnson, in hope of finding an additional fragment of
evidence to "lend support to the identification of Ranbir Singh
as the prototype for Morya", quotes some words from an 1890
letter written by H.P.B. Johnson writes: "...H.P.B. refers to
Olcott's having met two Masters in person, `one in Bombay and the
other in Cashmere.'" HPB's own words are: "one in Bombay and
the other in Cashmere." Johnson then comments on part of HPB's
words: "Olcott's only trip to Ranbir's kingdom was his 1883
journey to Jammu, but according to his own account of his visit
there, he met no Mahatma, spending all his time in the company of
the maharajah."

No doubt, Johnson wants to believe and he wants his readers to
believe that HPB's own words support Johnson's hypothesis of "the
identification of Ranbir Singh as the prototype for Morya." But
what Johnson does not focus on are the other words of HPB: "one
[Master] in Bombay". Who is this Master in Bombay? From HPB's
own letter of 1886 and Olcott's accounts of 1879, 1881 and 1884,
it is obvious (at least to me!)that the Master in Bombay was
Morya. HPB's "confirmation" of Olcott's account is probably
unsatisfactory for Johnson, but note well that Johnson will quote
HPB when her words might support his hypothesis.

Johnson again comments: "...my procedure [used in Johnson's
books] was to comb through the Theosophical literature looking
for clues that are specific enough to point to specific
prototypes or identifications for the Masters. Passages such as
the one you cite [Olcott's 1879 account] are not useful in that
way. I have said that passages such as the one you cite could be
used as `disproof' of ANY identification one could make, and
therefore that their evidentiary value is weak."

If I understand what Johnson is talking about, then he is saying
(at least in part) that accounts of meetings with the Masters
(such as the 1879 account in Bombay) have little evidentiary
value because such accounts don't point to a specific historical
identification of the Masters. But whatever Johnson is trying to
convey, the question is HAS JOHNSON FOLLOWED HIS OWN ADMONITION
AND RULE IN HIS PUBLISHED WORKS? In other words, does Johnson
quote and use accounts---*similar* to the 1879 one---where the
only witnesses are Olcott and H.P.B. (or other Theosophical
witnesses); where there is nothing in the accounts that would
help us to identify the real name of the Master; and where there
are no independent records or neutral witnesses?

Near the end of his posting (Oct. 16, 1995), Johnson points the
finger at me and says: "You...assume the accuracy of accounts
[of meetings with the Masters] by the Founders [Olcott and
H.P.B.] even when there is no evidence to confirm them. *This
will only fly with a Theosophical audience*." Asterisks added.
The meaning of the clause: "even when there is no evidence to
confirm them" is somewhat vague as to the intended meaning.
Does Johnson mean"evidence" that is given by non-theosophical
witnesses? What kind of "evidence" might confirm the accuracy of
accounts by the Founders that would *fly*, i.e., be believed by a
non-Theosophical audience? Johnson seems to implying that the
1879 account and similar accounts are *not* confirmed by such
evidence. =

But let me take Johnson's last statement, turn it into a question
and ask Johnson: "Have you assumed in your published writings
the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even when there is no
evidence to confirm them?"

At this point I would like to examine four accounts given by
Henry Olcott of his meetings with Masters that Paul Johnson
quotes from and uses in his books.

(I) OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON LIATTO. Johnson devotes a
"chapter" of his work THE MASTERS REVEALED, pp. 59-62, to Henry
Olcott's meeting with Ooton Liatto and another unnamed Adept. =

Johnson believes that Ooton Liatto is the same person as the
Adept Hilarion. Johnson writes: "In May 1875, HPB's scrapbook
noted that Hilarion and a companion `passed thro' New York &
Boston, thence thro' California and Japan...'...A recent
discovery by Joscelyn Godwin provides intriguing evidence for the
visit to New York by Hilarion mentioned in HPB's diary
[scrapbook?] in 1875....A letter from Olcott...[dated]...late
1875 or early 1876...describes meeting an adept...." (pp. 59-60)

Here are relevant extracts from Olcott's letter: "...I was
reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when there came a tap at
the door---I said `come in' and there entered the [younger]
Bro[ther] with another dark skinned gentleman of about
fifty....We took cigars and chatted for a while....[Then Olcott
relates that a rain shower started in the room. Olcott continues
the account:] They sat there and quietly smoked their cigars,
while mine became too wet to burn....finally the younger of the
two (who gave me his name as Ooton Liatto) said I needn't worry
nothing would be damaged....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam
B[lavatsky]....the elder Bro...[said] that with her permission
they would call upon her. I ran downstairs---rushed into Madams
parlour---and---there sat these same two identical men smoking
with her and chatting....I said nothing but rushed up stairs
again tore open my door and---the men were not there---I ran down
again, they had disappeared---I...looked out the window---and saw
them turning the corner...."

To this account, Johnson makes the following *significant*
admission: "The names Ooton Liatto and Hilarion Smerdis have
been equally impossible to find in biographical and historical
reference books. While both may be pseudonyms, there is little
doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in New York." (p. 62)

What are Johnson's own conclusions concerning this account?
(1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Olcott's
account.
(2) Johnson believes that two *real* adepts visited Olcott in
New York. Note the phrase: "...there is little doubt [at least
in Johnson's mind]...."
(3) Johnson also admits that the two names were not located in
any biographical and historical reference books; hence, both
names "may be pseudonyms."
(4) Johnson accepts the account at face value even though there
is only Olcott's account. =

How does this account by Olcott in 1875-76 significantly differ
from the account given by Olcott of the Master Morya coming to
Bombay headquarters on July 15, 1879? When I mentioned the 1879
account of Morya as evidence that Olcott had met a *real* adept
whose pseudonym was "Morya", Johnson did not hesitate to point
out the following three points: =

(1) "[The July 15, 1879 account is]...of little use in providing
a historical identification...If you want to use it as weight
against another identification...fine. But it lacks much weight
when there is no confirmation of the account." =

(2) "...I have said that passages such as the one you cite [the
July 15, 1879 account] could be used as `disproof' of ANY
identification one could make, and therefore that their
evidentiary value is weak." =

(3) "You...assume the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even
when there is no evidence to confirm them. This will only fly
with a Theosophical audience."

Could not one apply all three of these same points to Johnson's
own use of Olcott's account of Ootoo Liatto? One could rephrase
Johnson's point 3 to read: "You, Paul Johnson, assume the
accuracy of this 1875-1876 account by Olcott even when there is
no other evidence to confirm it. This will only fly with a
Theosophical audience!!!"

And the most important point that I can make in rebuttal of
Johnson's *dismissive* attitude toward the evidentiary
significance of Olcott's account of Morya visiting him in Bombay
in July, 1879 is to take Johnson's own summarizing sentences to
the chapter on "Ooton Liatoo" and rephrase them as follows: =

"The name Morya has been impossible to find in biographical and
historical reference books of 19th century persons. While it may
be a pseudonym, there is little doubt that a real adept visited
Olcott in Bombay on July 15, 1879."

If the Adept Morya ("in the flesh...and on horseback") visited
Olcott in Bombay on July 15, 1879, what impact does this account
by Olcott (and *similar* accounts by Olcott and other witnesses)
have on Johnson's "suggestion" that Morya is a fictitious Tibetan
persona? If Johnson himself regards it as "implausible" that
Ranbir Singh (whom Johnson speculates is the real individual
behind the Morya persona) was actually in Bombay on that July
1879 day, then is it not fair to suggest that Johnson's own
hypothesis is just as implausible?

(II) ACCOUNT OF OLCOTT'S MEETING WITH A MAHATMA ON AUGUST 4,
1880
In Johnson's book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, in a chapter on Jamal
ad-Din 'al-Afghani (described in the *New Encyclopaedia
Britannica*, 15th Edition as a Muslim politician, political
agitator, and journalist), we find the following narrative (p.
193): "In light of available knowledge of Afghani's comings and
goings in India, can he be connected to the Founders of the
Theosophical Society? The evidence is intriguing if not
convincing. The first problem is that Olcott rarely identifies
adepts when they appear in his narrative, beyond the fact of
their status as such. Thus, on August 4, 1880, [Olcott wrote:]`a
Mahatma visited H.P.B., and I was called in to see him before he
left. He dictated a long and important letter to an influential
friend of ours at Paris, and gave me important hints about the
management of current Society affairs....[Old Diary Leaves, II,
1972 printing, p. 208]" =

Johnson omits the following picturesque detail from Olcott's
account: "...I left him [the Mahatma] sitting in H.P.B.'s
room...." Johnson's commentary on Olcott's account is as
follows: "*Although there is no stated identity of this Mahatma*
[asterisks added], the mention of Paris rings true, since Afghani
was indeed to proceed to Paris, where he must have had an
influential friend from the evidence presented."

What are Johnson's own conclusions about this account by Olcott?
(1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Olcott's
account.
(2) Johnson is willing to believe that a Mahatma in his
*physical* body visited both Olcott and HPB on August 4, 1880.
(3) Johnson also admits that there is "no stated identity of
this Mahatma"; not even a pseudonym!
(4) Johnson accepts the account at face value even though there
is only Olcott's account.

How does this account by Olcott of Aug. 4, 1880 significantly
differ from the account given by Olcott of the Master Morya
coming to Bombay headquarters on July 15, 1879? In accepting
this account, does Johnson follow his own advice to me? "You
[Dan Caldwell]...assume the accuracy of accounts by the Founders
even when there is no evidence to confirm them. This will only
fly with a Theosophical audience."

In a letter of April 7, 1993 to Paul Johnson (a letter I wrote at
his request for information, input and criticism), I told him:
"But had you consulted Olcott's actual handwritten diary for
August 4, 1880, you would have discovered that Olcott identifies
this `Mahatma' as Morya....Now with this new piece of information
at your disposal, are you still willing to accept Col. Olcott's
testimony of this encounter with a Master [now identified as
Morya] at face value?" NOTE: Johnson dropped this account of
Aug. 4, 1880 from the chapter on Afghani in his 1994 book THE
MASTERS REVEALED.

The actual diary entry in Olcott's handwriting reads: "M
[followed by a triangle of three dots] here this evening & wrote
to Fauvety of Paris. He says 5000 English troops killed in
Afghanistan in the recent battle." It can be concluded that
Fauvety is the "influential friend of ours at Paris" to whom
Morya "dictated a long and important letter." I would further
suggest that Morya dictated this letter to H.P.B. who then wrote
it in French to Monsieur Charles Fauvety, President of the
Society for Psychological Studies, Paris. See HPB's *Collected
Writings*, Volume II, pp. 500-507 for a letter dated Bombay,
August 5, 1880 written to Charles Fauvety and signed by "H.P.
Blavatsky, Corresponding Secretary of the New York Theosophical
Society".

I will summarize the significance of this August 4, 1880 account
by paraphrasing Johnson's own summary of the Ooton Liatto
account:

"The names M. and Morya have been equally impossible to find in
biographical and historical reference books of 19th century
persons. While both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt
that a real adept visited Olcott and H.P.B. in Bombay on August
4, 1880."

Is it "implausible" that Maharajah Ranbir Singh is the Adept in
H.P.B.'s room dictating a letter to Monsieur Fauvety? And if it
is implausible to believe that this Adept is the Maharajah of
Kashmir, then is it not fair to suggest that Johnson's hypothesis
concerning Ranbir Singh/Morya is also implausible? =

(III) OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING A MASTER AT THE GOLDEN TEMPLE
IN AMRITSAR ON OCTOBER 23, 1880. In THE MASTERS REVEALED, p.
149, Johnson states: "Describing a visit to the Golden Temple in
Amritsar on 23 October 1880, he [Olcott] writes: `...at a shrine
where the swords, sharp steel discs, coats of mail, and other
warlike weapons of the Sikh warrior priests are exposed to view
in charge of the akalis, I was greeted, to my surprise and joy,
with a loving smile by one of the Masters, who for the moment was
figuring among the guardians, and who gave each of us a fresh
rose, with a blessing in his eyes....'"

Johnson admits that this Master, "who for the moment was figuring
among the guardians," was "unnamed by Olcott." Furthermore,
Johnson puts H.P. Blavatsky on the witness stand and quotes from
her CAVES AND JUNGLES OF HINDUSTAN where she writes: "Our new
friend [Ram-Ranjit-Das] was a native of Amritsar, in the Punjab,
and had been brought up in the `Golden Temple'....Our sannyasin
was...a regular Akali, one of the six hundred warrior-priests
attached to the `Golden Temple' for the purposes of divine
service and the protection of the Temple...."

Johnson assumes that Olcott and Blavatsky are describing the
"same character." Johnson goes on to say: "It is apparent from
*Old Diary Leaves* and *Caves and Jungles* that the same
character is described by both as a Sikh officiating at the
Golden Temple, in which he plays a supervisory role."

Does Olcott state that this unnamed Master was a Sikh officiating
at the Golden Temple? Olcott's own words are: "...I was
greeted, to my surprise and joy, with a loving smile by one of
the Masters, WHO FOR THE MOMENT WAS FIGURING AMONG THE
GUARDIANS...." [Caps added.] Does Olcott's words mean that this
Master was *one of the guardians*? Johnson, at least, wants to
believe this: "It is apparent...[at least to Johnson!]". =

Then, Johnson makes another assumption that Olcott's "unnamed"
Master (who is "a Sikh officiating at the Golden Temple") is also
"Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, first president of the Singh Sabha"
and "a sirdar from Amritsar." Johnson writes: "Seeking in and
around Amritsar for a Sikh hereditary nobleman and religious
functionary in 1880, one might find dozens of names to choose
from." On p. 154, Johnson gives his reasons for choosing Thakar
Singh from the "dozens of names to choose from." But Johnson
does *not* produce one *non-theosophical* historical record that
would even suggest that Blavatsky's "regular Akali" and Olcott's
unnamed "Master" at the Golden Temple was, in fact, Thakar Singh
Sandhanwalia. Where was Thakar Singh on October 23, 1880? =

Johnson presents no primary source document to indicate his
whereabouts on that day. Then Johnson makes another assumption
that Thakar Singh is actually the Theosophical Mahatma Koot
Hoomi. An equation of these assumptions might look as follows: =

Unnamed Master =3D Regular Akali =3D Thakar Singh =3D Koot Hoomi.

In THE MASTERS REVEALED (p. 154), Johnson writes: "K.H. dates
one of his earliest letters from `Amritas Saras' (the Golden
Temple) and refers to it as his home, but he makes it appear that
he is only rarely there on visits from Tibet." Johnson is
referring to a letter from K.H. to A.P. Sinnett that is dated
October 29, 1880. In this letter K.H. tells Sinnett: "the other
day...I was coming down the defiles of Kouenlun [mountains] ---
Karakorum you call them....I...was crossing over to Ladakh on my
way home....So I determined to emerge from the seclusion of many
years and spend some time with her [HPB who was then in
Amritsar]. I had come for a few days, but now find that I myself
cannot endure for any length of time the stifling magnetism even
of my own countrymen. I have seen some of our proud old Sikhs
drunk and staggering over the marble pavement of their sacred
Temple....I turn my face homeward to-morrow." (Mahatma Letter No.
5 in the new Chronological Edition of these Letters; No. 4
according to the older Editions). So Koot Hoomi himself says
that he was at the Golden Temple on or about Oct. 29. But in
this same letter, KH tells Sinnett that he had received Sinnett's
letter on Oct. 27th "about thirty miles beyond Rawalpindi" and
"had an acknowledgement wired to you from Jhelum" a few hours
later. As the crow flies, Rawalpindi is located approximately
180 miles northwest of Amritsar; Jhelum is about 120 miles
northwest of Amritsar. =

Was Koot Hoomi at the Golden Temple at Amritsar on October 23, as
Johnson wants to believe? First of all, the October 23rd date
that Johnson gives for Olcott's encounter with a Master is wrong. =

If one *carefully* reads the text of Olcott's account, the day of
the encounter is October 26th. And this is confirmed by Olcott's
own handwritten diary where under the entry for October 26th, one
reads the following: "...In the afternoon we went to the Golden
Temple again & found it as lovely as before. Saw some hundreds
of fakirs & gossains more or less ill-favored. A Brother there
saluted H.P.B. and me & gave us each a rose." Furthermore,
according to Mahatma Letter No. 5, Koot Hoomi was on Oct. 26,
1880 hundreds of miles north of Amritsar and the next day (Oct.
27th) was near Rawalpindi (some 180 northwest of the Golden
Temple). Subsequently K.H. then travelled to Amritsar and
visited the Golden Temple. [NOTE: Johnson quotes selectively
from the Mahatma Letters when some piece of information might
support his hypothesis but when confronted with information (even
in the same Mahatma letter) that negates his hypothesis, Johnson
calls the latter statements "disinformation", i.e. as the
dictionary defines the word: "false information
deliberately...spread...in order to...obscure the truth." Notice
Johnson's comment above: "...but he [KH] *makes it appear* that
he is only rarely there on visits from Tibet." Asterisks added. =

By this method, Johnson can discount any evidence that might
conflict with his own hypothesis. I suspect this is part of
Johnson's "Wonderland logic" that Dr. John Algeo illustrates on
p. 244 (*Theosophical History*, July, 1995) of his review of
Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED.]

What are Johnson's own conclusions concerning this account of a
Master at the Golden Temple on Oct. 23 (actually Oct 26), 1880?
(1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Olcott's
account. He also accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of
Blavatsky's account.
(2) Johnson believes that a physical Master was seen by Olcott
and Blavatsky at the Golden Temple on that Oct. 1880 date.
(3) Johnson also admits that the Master is "unnamed by Olcott."
(4) Johnson accepts the account at face value even though there
are only the accounts by Olcott and Blavatsky.

Johnson does *not* cite one historical document that would
indicate that Thakar Singh was the "unnamed Master"; he does
*not* give one source that would confirm that Thakar Singh was in
Amritsar on Oct. 26, 1880. =

Regarding this account one can take Johnson's own criticism
directed toward me and rephrase it:

"You, Paul Johnson, assume the accuracy of this Oct. 1880 account
by the Founders even when there is no other evidence to confirm
it. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience."

The interested reader might compare what I have said above
concerning this 1880 account with Dr. Algeo's section on
"Kuthumi/Thakar Singh" in his review (pp. 243-244).

(IV) OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MASTER KOOT HOOMI ON NOVEMBER
20, 1883 ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF LAHORE. In the book IN SEARCH OF
THE MASTERS (p. 242), Johnson tells his readers: "K.H. did
*indeed* visit Olcott, Damodar and Brown on the edge of Lahore." =

Asterisks added. Johnson is ready to believe that Olcott's
testimony can be taken *at face value*. Johnson is saying, in
effect: Yes, Henry Olcott actually did meet `Koot Hoomi.' Of
course, it was Thakar Singh. In Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED,
he spends several pages (pp. 157-160) describing K.H.'s two
visits on Nov. 20, 1883 to Olcott, Brown and Damodar. Again in
his latest book from SUNY, *Initiates of Theosophical Masters*,
Johnson relates William Brown's account of meeting K.H. at Lahore
and subsequently at Jammu (see pp. 35-38) and Damodar
Mavalankar's account of meeting K.H. at Lahore and later at Jammu
(see pp. 39-42). Concerning Damodar's account, Johnson writes: =

"Damodar had genuinely met Koot Hoomi outside Lahore and at the
palace of Ranbir Singh....This is one of the great true Mahatma
stories of Theosophical history; KH [Johnson means Thakar Singh]
and his colleagues Dayal Singh Majithia and Bhai Gurmukh Singh
did indeed welcome Olcott, Damodar, and Brown to Lahore." (p. 40)

 What are Johnson's own conclusions concerning these accounts
by Olcott, Damodar and Brown?

(1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of the
accounts by Olcott, Damodar and Brown.
(2) Johnson is willing to believe that a real Master in his
*physical* body visited Olcott, Damodar and Brown.
(3) Although Johnson knows that "Koot Hoomi" is a pseudonym;
this fact does not keep Johnson from believing that a real Master
visited the three Theosophists.
(4) Johnson accepts the accounts at face value even though these
accounts are all by Theosophists. Johnson elsewhere even asserts
that Damodar was a liar and deceiver yet Johnson seems willing to
believe Damodar when the latter's testimony fits in with
Johnson's hypothesis.

Remember Johnson's admonition to me? "You...assume the accuracy
of accounts by the Founders even when there is no other evidence
to confirm it. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience."
What non-theosophical audience/scholar would accept the testimony
of three Theosophical witnesses "when there is no other evidence
to confirm" their accounts? Furthermore, Johnson cites no
historical records that would indicate (let alone prove) that
Thakar Singh was at Lahore and Jammu on the dates that Olcott,
Damodar and Brown were. Apparently Johnson just assumes Thakar
Singh was at those locations on those dates; and he further
assumes that Thakar Singh was Koot Hoomi. Will this really fly
with a non-Theosophical audience? In THE MASTERS REVEALED (p.
160), Johnson comments about the Sikh Sirdars that provided
conveyances for Olcott, Damodar and Brown at Lahore: "His
Highness Raja Harbans Singh *and other Sirdars* sent their
conveyances to bring the party to their quarters....Most
intriguing in all this are the references to `other
Sirdars'....The lack of any mention of Thakar Singh's name seems
inevitable if he was indeed the Master K.H." Algeo provides a
very perceptive commentary on Johnson's statement: "By that sort
of logic every text that lacks mention of Thakar Singh becomes
evidence of his identity with Kuthumi....Lack of evidence thus
becomes evidence." Algeo having cited a relevant quote from
*Alice's Adventures in Wonderland*, goes on to say: "By [such]
Wonderland logic [that Johnson uses], anything can be proved."

 =
 =
 =
 _________________________________

In light of the four accounts by Olcott cited above, why does
Johnson so readily dismiss the July, 1879 account in which Morya
rides up on horseback to Bombay to visit with Olcott, HPB and
Babula? According to Johnson he dismisses this 1879 account for
the following reasons: (1) The account is of little evidentiary
weight since there is no confirmation of the account; (2) its
evidentiary value is weak because one cannot identify the Master
by his real name; and (3) there is no evidence to confirm the
account therefore one cannot know the accuracy of the account. =

BUT IF ONE ACCEPTS JOHNSON'S LINE OF REASONING, WOULD NOT ONE
HAVE TO ALSO DISMISS THE FOUR EXAMPLES CITED BY JOHNSON HIMSELF
AS EVIDENCE THAT REAL, PHYSICAL ADEPTS VISITED OLCOTT, BLAVATSKY
AND OTHER THEOSOPHISTS? The answer may be based upon whether one
uses normal logic or Wonderland logic! I await Johnson's answer.

 _____________________________

Part V will deal with Johnson's dismissal of certain testimonies =

concerning the Masters when those testimonies conflict with his
hypotheses.