Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00271)

World Wide Web Availability of "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?"
by Daniel H. Caldwell

Thanks to everyone who has requested a copy of my 43 page paper
titled K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?  The subtitle reads:
"A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical
Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi."  The paper has a two page appendix
written by David Reigle, author of the work THE BOOKS OF KIU-TE, etc.
(1983).

My paper takes a serious, detailed  look at Johnson's thesis.
Johnson's conjectures on these two Masters are shown to be
highly implausible and dubious when carefully scrutinized in
light of all the known testimony and evidence.  Primary source
documents are quoted IN DETAIL

A copy is NOW available on the World Wide Web.  This copy can
be accessed through the courtesy of BLAVATSKY NET
at this URL address:

http://www.blavatsky.org

On the first page of the Blavatsky Net Homepage, look for the section on:
"Refutations of Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky."

In this section my paper is introduced with these words:

"Rebuttal of K. Paul Johnson's books ---  Johnson is selling
three books that generate still more false ideas about Blavatsky.
Daniel Caldwell of Blavatsky Foundation has prepared an
in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson."

If you do not have access to the World Wide Web, I can send you
a paper copy of HOUSE OF CARDS.  Please notify me by e-mail
at:  blafoun@azstarnet.com

I have been notified by Dr. David C. Lane that he will also be giving
access to my paper on his web page  "The Neural Surfer" at the URL
address:  http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/

My paper is NOT available yet at Dr. Lane's homepage but as soon as
K. Paul Johnson's "Reply" to my paper is finished and ready for
dissemination, I assume both papers will then be available at the
"Neural Surfer" location.

I also welcome comments on my paper.  I have received numerous
replies mostly thanking me for writing the paper.  I am also looking
forward to any comments showing fallacies in my arguments, etc.
against Johnson's thesis.  I am always open to other people's views
on this subject. If I am somehow mistaken in my views, I certainly would
like to know.  But if someone tells me I have mistaken ideas, then I always
ask them to please explain their own views in detail and to go step by step
through their thinking process on the subject.  Serious consideration of
any subject requires this indepth kind of discussion and analysis.  Can
we afford to ask for any thing less in a world full of such conflicting
claims and
misinformation?

Daniel H. Caldwell