Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00158)

K. Paul Johnson writes on theos-l:

>I find it interesting that Daniel Caldwell denies that he is
>motivated by a rigid belief system in his attacks on my work.
>This theme is a significant part of my reply to his "House of
>Cards" which has been completed weeks ago but awaits a techie
>to help Dr. Lane upload it onto his website.  That rigid belief
>system is quite apparent in his writings, although I accept his
>statement as evidence that he is not aware of his own dogmatism.

Does it really matter what my motivations were in writing
my critique of Johnson's thesis on the Masters M. and KH?

Does it really matter whether I am motivated by a rigid belief
system or not?

*Readers of my critique can look at the arguments I gave and
the evidence I cited and decide whether my arguments hold water or not.*
Have I presented evidence ,etc. which shows that Johnson's thesis
is wrong?  That is the question to be answered.

Even if my "motivations" intrude into the text, I would hope some
readers are intelligent enough to discern between those "intrusions"
and the issues, arguments and evidence presented in my critique.

But here we see Johnson being a therapist and analysing my
belief system.  How does Johnson know what I really believe?

No doubt, I have a "belief" system.  Doesn't Johnson?  Doesn't most
people?  If I am wrong in my "beliefs" on the Masters, then please tell
me more than that I am wrong.  What am I not considering?  Where am
I wrong in my assumptions, etc.?  Win me over with rational discussion, etc.
instead of simply telling me I have a rigid belief system.  

I have tried to show in some detail with numerous examples where I
believe Johnson has gone astray in his research
on the Masters M. and K.H.  I would think that even Dr. David Lane, who
says he knows little about Theosophical history, would be able to see
some of the points I attempted to make in the critique and some of the
issues involved.

It would appear that Johnson is using an ad hominem argument.  
Johnson seems to be saying:  Distract by focusing on Caldwell; 
don't deal with the issues 
Caldwell raised in his critique.  Isn't this similar to those Theosophists
who have questioned Johnson's motivations instead of dealing with
the substance of Johnson's arguments?  I have no idea what Johnson's
motivations were in writing his books.  I assume they were all good but
I don't really care.  Does Johnson really know what my belief system is or
how rigid it is?  Or is he just blowing smoke to distract from the issues
I wrote about in HOUSE OF CARDS?  

Here is part of my central argument in HOUSE OF CARDS:

"In summary, it would appear that Johnson wants to use some 
of Olcott's testimony on the Masters to buttress his own thesis,
but would prefer to downplay or omit other testimony by Olcott
 that is not consistent with and, in fact, contradicts his
conjectures. Although he accused Mr. Richard-Nafarre of 'evading 
evidence,' is Johnson not guilty himself of ignoring
evidence and testimony 'presumably because it conflicts 
with other sources he prefers'? Furthermore, Johnson is 
quite willing to accuse Ramaswamier of lying when the 
latter's testimony of meeting Morya in Sikkim contradicts 
ohnson's speculations.  But Olcott's testimony of the 
Master Morya coming to Bombay on numerous occasions 
also runs counter to Johnson's
conjectures. Is 'something' wrong with Olcott's Bombay 
testimony? Is Johnson willing to entertain the possibility 
that Olcott mmight also be giving false testimony? But if 
Olcott is lying about the Master's appearances at Bombay, 
who (except Johnson??) would be foolish enough to 
accept Olcott's other testimony about adepts visiting
 him in New York, Amritsar, and
Lahore?" 

"Let it be clearly understood, I am not suggesting that 
Olcott lied about any of his meetings with the Adepts. 
In fact, I agree with Johnson that Olcott encountered 
real adepts in New York, Amritsar and Lahore. But I 
would go further and maintain that
the remaining encounters Olcott had with adepts at 
Bombay, Colombo and elsewhere should also be 
taken at face value. In other words, if one wants 
to be consistent in one's thinking on the subject, 
why accept some of Olcott's testimony on the
Masters while rejecting or at least ignoring the
 rest of it? Of course, Johnson has a thesis that 
he is obliged to defend. He has committed 
himself to certain identifications of the Masters 
M. and K.H. Has Johnson painted himself into the proverbial
'corner'?"

To illustrate this argument of mine, I gave in my critique
numerous detailed examples from the primary Theosophical 
sources.

My critique on Johnson's thesis concerning M. and K.H.
can be found on the World Wide Web at this URL address:
http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johnson.htm


Daniel H. Caldwell