Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00347)

ADDENDUM TO PART IV

JOHNSON'S THESIS CONCERNING THE MASTERS MORYA AND KOOT
HOOMI

By Daniel H. Caldwell

"In all about nine or ten persons testified to having
seen the Mahatmas: Annie Besant Henry Olcott Damodar
Mavalankar Isabel Cooper-Oakley William Brown
Nadyezhda Fadeyev S.R. Ramaswamier Justine Glinka and
Vsevolod Solovyov. Franz Hartmann said that while he
never actually saw them he felt their presence." =

Marion Meade in her biography MADAME BLAVATSKY THE
WOMAN BEHIND THE MYTH 1980 p. 497. I remember
reading this statement by Ms. Meade some fifteen years
ago and exclaiming to myself "Oh Marion Meade you
haven't done your homework!" Off the top of my head I
could count *at least* twenty-five people who testified
to having seen the Mahatmas during H.P.B.'s lifetime. =

And despite Meade's statement to the contrary Hartmann
had testified that he had also actually seen one of the
Mahatmas. Apparently Ms. Meade had never carefully
read even two of the titles listed in her own
bibliography: Geoffrey Barborka's THE MAHATMAS AND
THEIR LETTERS 1973 and Franz Hartmann's REPORT OF
OBSERVATIONS etc. 1884; both titles prove Meade
didn't know what she was writing about concerning
Hartmann.

It is a historical fact that more than twenty five
people testified to having seen the Mahatmas during
H.P.B.'s lifetime. Whether these testimonies are true
or not of course is another question and issue. But
how does Paul Johnson in his three major books handle
these testimonies? We have already seen in Part IV of
this series that Johnson uses a "double standard" in
assessing the evidence of some of these testimonies. =

In reply to my criticism that Johnson ignored certain
testimonies of Olcott's encounters with the Master
Morya Johnson asserted a "higher" standard of evidence
that he felt should be met. Yet within his own
published writings Johnson uses a *lower* standard and
accepts "at face value" at least four accounts by
Olcott. It was my contention in Part IV that by
Johnson's own use of this lower standard the other
accounts by Olcott of meeting the Master Morya in
Bombay and elsewhere should also be accepted at face
value.

As I related in Part IV Johnson devotes pp. 59-62 of
THE MASTERS REVEALED to Henry Olcott's 1875-76 meeting
with Ooton Liatto and another unnamed Adept. To
refresh the reader's memory I quote again some
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....[Then Olcott relates that a
rain shower started in the room. Olcott continues the
account:]...the younger of the two...gave me his name
as Ooton Liatto....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam
B[lavatsky]....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...."

In summarizing this account Johnson writes: "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 Asterisks added. =

 From his own words we see that Johnson accepts the
accuracy and truthfulness of Olcott's account and also
believes that two *real* adepts visited Olcott in New
York. Johnson makes these admissions although he
concedes that the two names [Hilarion and Ooton Liatto]
were *not* located in any biographical and historical
reference books; hence both names "may be pseudonyms." =

Johnson also accepts Olcott's account literally and at
face value even though there is only Olcott's testimony
to confirm the account. I should tell the reader that
I also agree with Johnson's estimation of Olcott's
account. In light of Johnson's *own criteria and
standards* as evidenced in this Ooton Liatto incident
and the other three accounts discussed in Part IV I
submit to interested readers for their thoughtful
consideration and analysis the following incidents
involving the Master Morya:

a In a letter dated Sept. 30 1881 Olcott relates
what had happened just three days before: "...on the
night of that day [Sept. 27th 1881] I was awakened
from sleep by my *Chohan* or Guru the Brother [Morya]
whose immediate pupil I am....He made me rise sit at
my table and write from his dictation for an hour or
more. There was an expression of anxiety mingled with
sternness on his noble face as there always is when
the matter concerns H.P.B. to whom for many years he
has been at once a father and a devoted guardian."

Colonel Olcott was at that time in Columbo Ceylon. Is
this Brother dictating to Olcott to be equated with
Johnson's "fictitious Tibetan persona"? Or is this
Brother dictating to Olcott to be equated with a *real*
Mahatma similar to the *real* adept Ootoo Liatoo whom
Johnson is willing to believe visited Olcott in New
York? In the Mahatma Letters near the end of Letter
29 in the 2nd and 3rd editions Morya himself refers
to *this same visit* to Olcott in these words: =

"O[lcott]'s memo...was written on the 27th [of Sept.
1881]....K.H. thought of asking me to go and tell
O[lcott] to do so....At the same time as I delivered my
message to O[lcott] I satisfied his curiosity as to
your [Sinnett's Simla Theosophical] Society and told
[Olcott] what I thought of it. O[lcott] asked my
permission to send to you these notes which I
accorded...."

b In his handwritten diary for Jan. 29 1882
Bombay India Colonel Olcott writes this brief
account: "M [orya] showed himself very clearly to me &
HPB in her garden....she joining him they talked
together...." Using Johnson's own "Ootoo Liatoo"
criteria could we not accept this account at face
value as evidence of the Master Morya visiting Olcott
and HPB at Bombay T.S. headquarters?
=

c The following is a joint statement by seven people
including Olcott: "We were sitting together in the
moonlight about 09 o'clock upon the balcony which
projects from the front of the bungalow. Mr. Scott was
sitting facing the house so as to look through the
intervening verandah and the library and into the room
at the further side. This latter apartment was
brilliantly lighted. The library was in partial
darkness thus rendering objects in the farther room
more distinct. Mr. Scott suddenly saw the figure of a
man step into the space opposite the door of the
library; he was clad in the white dress of a Rajput
and wore a white turban. Mr. Scott at once recognized
him from his resemblance to a portrait [of Morya] in
Col. Olcott's possession. Our attention was then drawn
to him and we all saw him most distinctly. He walked
towards a table and afterwards turning his face
towards us walked back out of our sight...when we
reached the room he was gone....Upon the table at the
spot where he had been standing lay a letter addressed
to one of our number. The handwriting was identical
with that of sundry notes and letters previously
received from him....:" The statement is signed by =00

"Ross Scott Minnie J.B. Scott H.S. Olcott H.P.
Blavatsky M. Moorad Ali Beg Damodar K. Mavalankar
and Blavani Shankar Ganesh Mullapoorkar." *In this
case we have not only Olcott's account but testimony
by six other people.* Compare this with the Ooton
Liatto account.

 From Olcott's own handwritten diary for Jan. 05 1882 I
quote extracts never before published and now
transmitted on the Internet around the world!
concerning this event witnessed by the above-named
seven individuals: "Evening. Moonlight. On balcony
HPB Self Scott & wife Damodar....[etc]...M[orya]
appeared in my office. First seen by Scott then
me....Scott clearly saw M's face....M left note for me
on table in office by which he stood...."

To summarize the significance of these three accounts
a b and c we can paraphrase 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 people. While both may be pseudonyms there is
little doubt that a real Mahatma visited Olcott and
others in Colombo and Bombay." This is my estimation
of these three accounts. Since I am using Johnson's
own "Ootto Liatto" criteria to assess the evidence
would Johnson also agree with my estimation of these
three accounts? I ask interested readers who are
willing to carefully analyze and think through these
issues: What light do these three accounts shed on
Johnson's hypothesis concerning the Morya persona? Can
a merely "fictitious Tibetan persona" be walking around
and interacting with Olcott as well as seen by six
other witnesses? Furthermore can the Mahatma Morya in
these three accounts be identified with Ranbir Singh? =

Is it plausible that the Maharajah of Kashmir was in
Bombay and Columbo on these dates? *I would suggest
that these three accounts are simply more evidence
showing the implausibility and improbability of
Johnson's hypothesis on Ranbir Singh/Morya. It is my
opinion that these accounts and other similar accounts
indicate that Johnson's Ranbir hypothesis doesn't even
begin to address and account for much of the
Theosophical evidence/testimony concerning Morya etc.* =

I believe that the evidence I have adduced in Part IV
and in this Addendum help to support the validity of
Dr. Algeo's following observation: "The parallels
between Ranbir Singh and Morya are *exceedingly
tenuous*....There is no evidence that Ranbir was in
fact the model for Morya's virtues or *anything else*
in connection with him." Asterisks added.

Let us now turn to S. Ramawamier's account of meeting
the Mahatma Morya in Sikkim. Johnson deals with
Ramswamier's account on pp. 25-30 of *Initiates of
Theosophical Masters* SUNY 1995. This account is a
rehash of what Johnson had previously written on pp.
246-249 of his 1990 IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS. Johnson
writes: "S. Ramabadra Ramaswamier was a clerk from
Tinevely in South India on leave after a nervous
breakdown. Following HPB on her travels on Oct 05
he allegedly went from Darjeeling into Sikkim and
penetrated twenty miles beyond the border where he
claimed to have met the Master M...."

I give an excerpt from Ramaswamier's account Oct
1882: "...I suddenly saw a solitary horseman
galloping towards me from the opposite direction. From
his tall stature and the expert way he managed the
animal I thought he was some military officer of the
Sikkim Raja...But as he approached me he reined the
steed. I looked at and recognized him instantly...I
was in the awful presence of...my own revered *Guru*
[Morya]...The very same instant saw me prostrated on
the ground at his feet. I arose at his command....He
wears a short black beard and long black hair hanging
down to his breast...He wore a yellow mantle lined with
fur and on his head...a yellow Tibetan felt cap...I
had a long talk with him. He told me to go no further
for I would come to grief. He said I should wait
patiently if I wanted to become an accepted
*Chela*...Before he left two more men came on
horseback his attendants I suppose probably *Chelas
for they were dressed...like himself with long hair
streaming down their backs. They followed the Mahatma
as he left at a gentle trot...."

What are Johnson's comments on this account by
Ramaswamier? In his 1990 book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS
p. 247 Johnson writes: "The height and horsemanship
are reminiscent of Ranbir Singh [maharajah of Kashmir]
one prototype for Master M. *But what could he have
been doing in Sikkim?* [Asterisks added.] Not only
does this tale distract the reader from the
geographical circumstances [Kashmir?] of the real M.
[Ranbir Singh] it also makes him seem someone who can
wander at will and has no obligations at home." This
passage is deleted from the account in Johnson's newest
book. But let us reflect on Johnson's remarks. "But
what could he [the Maharajah of Kashmir] have been
doing in Sikkim?" Looking at a map of India the
reader will notice that Sikkim is located on the far
northeastern side of India while Kashmir is located on
the far northwestern side. Yes I agree IF the "real
M" is Ranbir Singh Ramaswamier's account is hard to
take at face value. Obviously Ranbir Singh has
obligations at home as monarch of his kingdom and
cannot wander at will! Therefore it is not surprising
to me that Johnson tries to invalidate Ramaswamier's
account. Why? One reason could be: If one accepts
Ramaswamier's account *at face value* then this
account can be considered another piece of evidence
*against* Johnson's hypothesis concerning Ranbir
Singh/Morya. I would suspect that if Ramaswamier's
encounter had taken place in the vicinity of Ranbir's
palace in Kashmir Johnson would have used the account
to support his Ranbir hypothesis. Johnson's
explanation in *Initiates of Theosophical Masters* is
as follows: "Blavatsky's biographer Marion Meade
interprets this as the hallucination of a madman
rather than a role played under direction of real
Masters. Ramaswamier's account is indeed inherently
preposterous [why?] but a closer look [by Johnson]
reveals it to have been inspired by HPB and her
Masters....After Ramaswamier's death in 1893 one of
his sons published the letters he received from the
Masters intending them as proof that his father had
been deceived by HPB. The eloquence of Ramaswamier's
report [about meeting Master Morya] raises the question
of how much of it HPB may have written for him. That
an elaborate scheme of deception was indeed being
engineered is apparent from these letters...which
suggest a conspiracy to prove the Masters' existence." =

In other words Johnson believes that Ramaswamier was
neither a victim of hallucinations or a dupe of HPB's
confederates as Richard Hodgson had suggested but
that Ramaswamier was a co-conspirator with HPB. In
other words he lied about meeting Morya in Sikkim; and
HPB probably wrote his account! In passages not found
in Johnson's newest book but to be found in his earlier
1990 work Johnson adds these details: "...it seems
clear [to Johnson at least] that HPB had found in
Ramaswamier a willing accomplice. The goal of the
operation was to distract attention from the Punjab and
Kashmir so as to confuse observers intent on finding
the Mahatmas....It is impossible to tell from these
passages [in M.'s letters to Ramaswamier] whether
Ramaswamier was deceived in Sikkim by a bogus Mahatma
or whether he was a willing partner in the deception. =

The latter seems much more likely in light of the
peculiar aspects of his story involving the Master's
voice and coincidental meetings...." p. 246 & 249. =

Concerning Johnson's reference to "peculiar aspects"
like "the Master's voice" heard by Ramaswamier I could
quote from similar accounts by Olcott in which Olcott
said he also heard "the Master's voice" when the Master
was not to be seen. Does this mean that Olcott can
also be considered an accomplice? Is Johnson willing
to label Olcott as a liar and accomplice of HPB's? In
the above extract Johnson writes: "The goal of the
operation was to distract attention from the Punjab and
Kashmir so as to confuse observers intent on finding
the Mahatmas...." This is of course *Johnson's own
interpretation* of the events in order to safeguard his
hypotheses on M. and K.H. As I said in Part IV
Johnson will quote information from various sources in
support of his hypotheses but if information even in
the same document negates his hypotheses Johnson will
discount the latter information and label it as
"disinformation." By this method one could prove
almost anything.

The reader of Johnson's books may not be aware that S.
Ramaswamier whom Johnson would like to believe is a
confederate of H.P.B.'s also testified that he saw the
Master Morya at Bombay T.S. headquarters on Dec. 28
1881. Henry Olcott was also a witness to this
encounter and writes to A.O. Hume as follows: "I am
glad to be able to send you the testimony of still
another witness who has seen my *Chohan* [Morya] and
under most favourable circumstances....I never saw the
Brother looking more splendid than he did to-night in
the bright moonlight. Mr. R[amaswamier] is a Brahman
of the highest caste his brother or cousin is I
believe chief priest to the Maharajah of Travancore
and he is intensely interested in Occultism." Olcott's
letter is dated the same day Dec. 28 1881. Attached
to this letter is an account signed by H.S. Olcott
Damodar K. Mavalankar and S. Ramaswamier testifying
that they had seen "a man upon the balcony...leaning
against the balustrade and with the moolight shining
full upon him. He was dressed in white and wore a
white Fehta [turban] on his head. His beard was black
and his long black hair hung to his breast. Olcott and
Damodar at once recognized him as the `Illustrious.'
[Morya] He raised his hand and dropped a letter to us. =

Olcott jumped from the carriage and recovered it....It
was a message to Ramaswamier in reply to a letter in
a closed envelope which he had written to the Brother
a short time before we went out for the ride...."

Was Ramaswamier an accomplice of HPB's in this account
too? Maybe Olcott and Damodar were also confederates
of HPB and the three of them lied about this event? If
Johnson can attempt to convict Ramaswamier of giving
false testimony lying then why not include Olcott and
Damodar too? Turning to another matter remember some
of Johnson's comments on Ramaswamier's meeting with =

Morya in Sikkim? In his 1990 book IN SEARCH OF THE
MASTERS p. 247 Johnson wrote: "The height and
horsemanship are reminiscent of Ranbir Singh [maharajah
of Kashmir] one prototype for Master M. But what
could he have been doing in Sikkim? Not only does this
tale distract the reader from the geographical
circumstances [Kashmir] of the real M. [Ranbir Singh]
it also makes him seem someone who can wander at will
and has no obligations at home." Could not one
paraphrase Johnson's comments and apply them to
Ramaswamier's Olcott's and Damodar's account of Dec.
28 1881? as follows: "The height and turban are
reminiscent of Ranbir Singh. But what could he have
been doing in Bombay? Not only does this tale distract
the reader from the geographical circumstances of the
real M. it also makes him seem someone who can wander
at will and has no obligations at home." And such
remarks could be said of all of Morya's appearances to
Olcott and others at Bombay. If Johnson is willing to
accuse Ramaswamier who had known HPB for only a year
or so of being an accomplice and liar is Johnson
willing to accuse Olcott who had known HPB for some
seven years and had a vested longtime interest in
HPB's work etc. of being an accomplice and liar too? =

*And if Olcott can be considered an accomplice and liar
of HPB's what non-theosophical reader and scholar
would be foolish enough to accept the four accounts of
Olcott mentioned in my Part IV and accepted by Paul
Johnson at face value as evidence of real adepts and
masters?* If it is true that Dr. Gregory Tillett and
Dr. David Christopher Lane has changed their opinions
from one of believing HPB's Masters were entirely
fictional to another opinion approximating Johnson's
thesis concerning M. and K.H. then I would urge them
to reconsider their new found perspectives. In light
of what I have said in this series of articles it
might be better for both of these scholars to return to
their former positions.

I again ask readers who are willing to carefully
analyze and think through these issues: What light do
these firsthand accounts shed on Johnson's hypothesis
concerning the Morya persona? Can a merely "fictitious
Tibetan persona" be walking around and interacting with
Olcott Ramaswamirer Damodar? Furthermore can the
Mahatma Morya in these accounts be identified with
Ranbir Singh? Is it plausible that the Maharajah of
Kashmir was in Bombay and Sikkim on these dates? I
would suggest that these accounts are simply MORE
EVIDENCE showing the implausibility and improbability
of Johnson's hypothesis on Ranbir Singh/Morya. It is
my opinion that these accounts and other similar
accounts indicate that Johnson's Ranbir hypothesis
doesn't even begin to address and account for much of
the Theosophical evidence/testimony concerning Morya
etc.