Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00602)

> STRAIN AT A GNAT, SWALLOW A CAMEL:
> A Reply to Daniel Caldwell's Criticisms
> by K. Paul Johnson
> > > 
>     Madame Blavatsky aroused passionate debate during her
> life and has continued to be a topic of controversy ever
> since.  It should come as no surprise that a new theory about
> her can arouse intense feelings in a readership polarized by
> decades of rancorous argument.  Nevertheless, I have been
> surprised and dismayed by the outrage some Theosophists have
> expressed toward my books, which are fundamentally friendly and
> positive in their approach.  My sympathy for Theosophy caused
> the books to be dismissed as "pious" and "deferential" toward
> Blavatsky in a recent article by a non-Theosophist. For several years,
> Daniel Caldwell has been denouncing my writings
> about Blavatsky and her Masters, and now his objections are published
> in a booklet and on-line.  Responding to his criticisms provides me a
> welcome opportunity to address many points of misunderstanding.
> > > 
> "NOTHING MORE THAN A HOUSE OF CARDS"
> > > 
> 	The phrase "nothing more than a house of cards" conveys
> the dilemma of any author attempting to reconstruct the past
> from fragmentary and labyrinthine evidence.  When the subject
> is a person who deliberately concealed some elements of her
> past and exaggerated others, this dilemma intensifies.  The
> author has to evaluate conflicting evidence and work around
> frustrating gaps in the record.  At one level, "house of cards"
> accurately describes every attempt to explain Blavatsky, whose
> life remains mysterious despite the efforts of generations of
> biographers.  But at another level, the phrase conveys wishful
> thinking and a destructive attitude on the part of persons
> leveling the accusation.  My response will explore both of
> these levels of meaning.
>      The crucial question here is how solidly constructed my
> books are compared to other "houses of cards" that have been
> built to explain HPB.  Mr. Caldwell's critique fails to address
> the great majority of the evidence presented in my books in
> support of the identifications of Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh
> as the primary prototypes for Morya and Koot Hoomi
> respectively.  This violates the very standard he sets forth in
> his critique: "Details that could throw doubt on your
> interpretation must be given, if you know them.  You must do
> the best you can-- if you know anything at all wrong, or
> possibly wrong-- to explain it," in the words of Richard
> Feynman.  Mr. Caldwell ignores most of the details on which my
> arguments are based, but concludes that my hypotheses are "highly
> implausible and dubious when carefully scrutinized in light of
> all [sic] the known facts."  By failing to scrutinize most of
> the known facts cited in my arguments for the identifications
> in question, he leaves the reader quite unprepared to evaluate
> his conclusions.  Therefore I offer this synopsis of the major
> evidence presented in my books concerning Morya and Koot
> Hoomi's identifications, in the order in which it appears:
> > 
>                           ### 
> > > 
> 1.  In *Caves and Jungles of Hindustan*, HPB portrays an adept
> called "Gulab-Singh" as the chief sponsor and companion of the TS
> Founders in their Indian travels; he is the Rajput ruler of a
> small native state, called a Thakur in most references but a
> raja and prince in others.  In a letter to Prince Dondukov-Korsakov,
> HPB identifies Gulab-Singh as Morya.  Her tales of meeting him
> in London in her youth, which appear in *Caves and Jungles* and
> *HPB Speaks*, are variations on similar stories about Morya
> appearing elsewhere.  Ranbir Singh was the most important
> Rajput ruler who sponsored and supported the TS Founders in
> their travels and activities; his father was named Gulab Singh.
> 2.  In *Old Diary Leaves* Olcott describes *Caves and Jungles*
> as heavily fictionalized, but also describes Gulab-Singh as a
> real adept known to him and HPB.  He gives no indication that
> Gulab-Singh and Morya are the same person, unlike the HPB
> letter cited above.  This is relevant to points in Mr.
> Caldwell's critique discussed below.
> 3.  According to *Isis Unveiled*, HPB visited Ranbir Singh's
> kingdom in her youthful travels, passing from Kashmir to Leh,
> Ladakh (part of his domain).  She calls Ladakh "central Tibet"
> which suggests that as of 1877 her familiarity with Tibet was
> quite limited.
> 4.  In an entry in Olcott's diary, HPB noted that Edward
> Wimbridge had brought her a copy of the *London Illustrated
> News* which contained "Holkar's and Some One's portrait, among
> others."  The volume containing a portrait of Maharaja Holkar
> of Indore, a TS sponsor, also contains a portrait of Maharaja
> Ranbir Singh of Kashmir, among those of other native rulers.
> Ranbir Singh is the only one with major ties to the TS, which
> suggests that he was "Some One."  HPB's reverence and
> evasiveness indicate that she is referring to some important
> Master figure that she is reluctant to name in the diary.
> 5.  HPB's least-known book *The Durbar in Lahore* gives a
> lengthy, detailed description of Ranbir Singh and his
> entourage.  It portrays the main objective of her and Olcott's
> trip to Lahore as meeting Ranbir and some Punjabi Sikhs
> including Maharaja Bikram Singh of Faridkot.
> 6.  In the preface to *Isis Unveiled* HPB refers to
> "influential corresponents" in Kashmir and other places,
> indicating that there was some connection with important
> persons in that kingdom prior to her departure from New York
> for India.
> 7.  In a letter from K.H. to Sinnett, Ranbir Singh is called
> "the prince first on the programme" for support of the
> *Phoenix* newspaper venture that was to be edited by Sinnett
> under the Masters' guidance.
> 8.  In May 1883, a supplement in *The Theosophist* described a
> visit to Jammu by supporters of the Indian Patriotic
> Association, who had an audience with Ranbir Singh and his
> sons.  Among them was "D. Nath Bawaji," the alleged chela with
> multiple aliases; Ranbir Singh treated him with special
> hospitality and warmth.  After the death of Ranbir Singh,
> Bawaji (usually spelled Babaji) rebelled against HPB and
> disappeared from Theosophical history.
> 9.  In a letter to Sinnett, HPB says that Ranbir Singh "sent
> for" Olcott to visit him in the Fall of 1883, and that K.H.
> ordered him to go to a certain pass.  Thus Olcott's travel
> plans were being guided jointly by the orders of Ranbir Singh
> and K.H., according to HPB.
> 10.  In his *Old Diary Leaves* description of his stay in
> Jammu, Olcott describes Ranbir in extremely favorable terms, as
> a "thoughtful Vedantin, well acquainted with philosophical
> systems" who "fully believed in the existence of living
> Mahatmas."
> 11.  Damodar Mavalankar, who had vanished from Ranbir Singh's
> guest house and was gone for three days, returned reporting
> that he had left there with K.H. to go to an ashram of the Masters.  He later identified this ashram as being
> "within His Highness' Dominion."
> 12.  In an article written later, Damodar said that Ranbir
> Singh "not only believed in the existence of the HIMALAYAN
> MAHATMAS, but seemed sure of the fact from personal knowledge."
> 13.  Ranbir Singh was a chief financial sponsor of the Punjab
> University, which was deeply influenced by the Singh Sabha, an
> organization with ties to the TS Founders.  Thakar Singh
> Sandhanwalia, my nominee for K.H.'s primary prototype, was the
> founding President of the Singh Sabha.
> 14.  Ranbir Singh was a profoundly religious ruler, a Hindu
> who was very supportive of scholarship in Buddhist and Islamic
> texts as well as those of his own faith, and a social reformer
> with ideals similar to those of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati's
> Arya Samaj, with which the TS leaders were loosely allied at
> the time of the Lahore durbar.
>      A summary paragraph in *The Masters Revealed* explains the
> crucial elements of the evidence presented thus far:
>      There were two points in the history of the TS at which
>    the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi appeared as solid
>    historical personages rather than elusive semi-ethereal
>    beings.  At both of these points, the same triangular
>    configuration is apparent:  the Founders of the TS, the
>    Maharaja Ranbir Singh, and an Amritsar Sikh Sirdar are found 
>    working in collusion.  In October and November 1880, the
>    Founders' trip to the Punjab to meet these figures consided
>    with the beginning of the Mahatma correspondence.  In November
>    1883, Olcott's trip to Lahore and Jammu again involved Punjabi
>    Sikh Sirdars and the Maharaja of Kashmir.
>      Several factors distinguish the quality of this evidence
> from the alleged visits *to* the TS Founders *by* M. and K.H.
> cited as counterevidence by Mr. Caldwell.  It is far more
> feasible to follow known people making documented journeys to
> known locations by known means than to follow unknown persons
> making undocumented journeys by unknown means which are
> allegedly miraculous in some cases.  I have followed HPB and
> Olcott to Northern India and determined as best I could whom
> they met there and why (having literally retraced their steps
> when possible); I welcome and invite alternative explanations
> of these journeys and relationships.  But instead Mr. Caldwell
> offers only "evidence" which is entirely useless in identifying
> prototypes for M. and K.H., which in some cases sounds more
> like apparitions or stage magic than normal encounters, and
> which therefore is more truly a "house of cards" than anything
> I have proposed.  If he and others of like mind were to offer
> in print the explanation of the evidence which they prefer to
> mine and the reasons they find it more credible, readers would
> be in a position to evaluate alternative "houses of cards."  As
> things stand, my critics are silent as to their own explanation
> of the evidence and concentrate on attacking mine, perhaps on
> the principle that the best defense is a good offense.
>      There is more evidence supporting the identification of
> Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia as a prototype of K.H. than there is
> concerning Ranbir Singh and Morya.  Summarizing that presented
> in *The Masters Revealed*:
> 1.  In April 1878, HPB wrote an article entitled "The Akhund of
> Swat" which included a glowing encomium for Sikhism.  This
> referred to Sirdars, each of whom was chief of one of twelve
> misls.  She added that Sikh Sirdars had secret councils
> consisting of learned gurus, some of whom were "Masters in
> Spiritual Science...[who] exhibited astounding miracles."
> 2.  In *Caves and Jungles* HPB describes an acquaintance who is
> an Akali or temple functionary, an Amritsar native, named
> Ram-Ranjit-Das, who has a spiritual link to Gulab-Singh.
> 3.  In *Old Diary Leaves* Olcott describes "one of the Masters"
> who meets him at the Amritsar Golden Temple where he is
> "figuring among the guardians."
> 4.  HPB, in a letter reproduced by Richard Hodgson in his
> report, wrote to Moolji Thackersey about a Sikh friend of the
> TS that Moolji had presumably described in a letter, commenting
> "You call him a Sirdar" and adding that "he is of Amritsar."
> She inquires about finding descendants of Ranjit Singh, and
> asks Moolji to recruit rajas and maharajas to the TS.  Thakar
> Singh was a Sirdar from Amritsar, a relative of Ranjit Singh,
> and an associate of several rajas and maharajas with TS links.
> 5.  The first letter from K.H. to Sinnett dates from October
> 1880, the month in which the TS Founders visited Amritsar en
> route to the Durbar in Lahore.
> 6.  An early K.H. letter was dated from "Amritas Saras" (the
> Golden Temple) and refers to '`greasy' Tibetans and Punjabi
> Singhs" as "our best, most learned and holiest adepts."
> 7.  The Sikh reform organization the Singh Sabha, founded in
> Amritsar by Thakar Singh and others, shared many objectives
> with the Arya Samaj of Swami Dayananda, and worked
> cooperatively with it.  Ranbir Singh also endorsed much of the
> Arya Samaj reform program, and was very supportive of the Singh
> Sabha.  HPB initially portrayed Dayananda as affiliated with M.
> and K.H., but changed her attitude later.
> 8.  HPB's *The Durbar in Lahore* includes detailed descriptions
> of Amritsar, the Golden Temple, and Sikhism, and describes a
> Lahore meeting with Ram-Ranjit-Das, who takes HPB and Olcott to
> the Maharaja of Faridkot.  This maharaja was a Singh Sabha
> member and strong supporter of Thakar Singh in later political
> plots.
> 9.  The same work includes lengthy discussion of the deposed
> Maharaja Dalip Singh, in which HPB denounces his conversion to
> Christianity and shows great sympathy for his widowed mother.
> Thakar Singh was later instrumental in Dalip's reconversion to
> Sikhism.
> 10.  In November 1883, Olcott went to Lahore en route to Jammu,
> at the joint invitation of Ranbir Singh and K.H. according to
> HPB's letter to Sinnett.  In Lahore he was visited in the flesh
> by K.H., accompanied by another Master, as were William T.
> Brown and Damodar Mavalankar according to the testimony of all
> three.
> 11.  According to the January 1884 supplement to *The
> Theosophist*, Olcott, Damodar and Brown were transported to
> their quarters by conveyances provided by "Raja Harbans Singh
> and other Sirdars."  These quarters were the site of the visit
> by K.H. described above.
> 12.  At a reception welcoming the group to Lahore, they were
> greeted by Sirdar Dayal Singh Majithia of Amritsar and Bhai
> Gurmukh Singh, both important colleagues of Thakar Singh in the
> Singh Sabha, as well as a commissioner deputed by Maharaja
> Ranbir Singh.
> 13.  Thakar Singh was the cousin of the deposed maharaja Dalip
> Singh, and in early 1883 decided to go to England to visit him
> on family business.  But as of November 9 he was still at home
> and writing to the lieutenant-governor of the Punjab attempting
> to get permission for the trip.  Sometime in the summer of 1884
> he arrived in London, where Sinnett had relocated.
> 14.  K.H., in a letter to Sinnett during the collapse of the
> *Phoenix* venture, sounded a note of patriotic desperation,
> saying he was "bound to devote the whole of my powers as far as
> the Chohan will permit me to help my country at this eleventh
> hour of her misery."
> 15.  Another letter from K.H. appealed to patriotic motives
> repeatedly, commenting that "In the presence of his country
> perishing in its nationality for want of vitality, and the
> infusion of fresh forces, the patriot catches at a straw."
> 16.  Within two years Thakar Singh embroiled his cousin Dalip
> in a patriotic scheme involving a plot to restore him to the
> throne with Russian and French support.  This was regarded as
> beginning the liberation of all India from British rule.
> 17.  K.H. had referred to a "dark satire" in the phrase "jewel
> in the crown" and HPB had called British rule "that curse of
> every land it fastens itself upon"-- in the very letter where
> she welcomed the friendship of the Sirdar and expressed hope of
> finding a descendant of Ranjit Singh.
> 18.  In an April 1884 letter to Alexis Coulomb written in
> Paris, HPB said in reference to the Mahatmas that "*there is
> one here now and there will be also in London*."  This was
> during the period when Thakar Singh was attempting to go to
> London.
> 19.  Olcott received an unsigned letter saying that "unless you
> put your shoulder to the wheel yourself Kuthumi Lal Singh will
> have to disappear off the stage this fall."  Later the same
> month of June 1883, two more Mahatma letters came to Olcott,
> recommending that he "put your whole soul in answer to A.P.S.
> [Sinnett] from K.H." and that he "Be careful about letter to
> Sinnett.  Must be a really *Adeptic* letter."  This coincides
> with the period when Thakar Singh decided to leave India.
> 20.  In 1896 Olcott toured the Punjab again.  On their first
> evening in Lahore, he and his companion Lilian Edger dined at
> the home of Sirdar Amrao Singh, described as a "pillar of
> strength in our Lahore branch."  Amrao Singh had been a
> conspirator in the plot to restore Dalip Singh to the throne,
> lending a servant for Thakar Singh's use in delivering secret
> letters to various maharajas appealing for support.
> 21.  On the same trip they were visited by Bhai Gurmukh Singh,
> who had become the greatest figure in the Singh Sabha movement,
> after beginning his career as a protege of Thakar Singh and his
> colleagues.
> 22.  Dayal Singh Majithia, another Sirdar who welcomed Olcott,
> Brown, and Domair to Lahore, was present at the TS convention
> for 1884 which led to the forming of the Indian National
> Congress.  Dayal Singh supported Thakar Singh's anti-British schemes,
> although Gurmukh Singh opposed them.
> > > 
>      This sketches the "house of cards" as it stands at the
> close of *The Masters Revealed*, save for the fact that HPB
> later wrote Sinnett a letter revealing inside knowledge of the
> Dalip Singh conspiracy.  Her Russian editor Katkov was a chief
> conspirator as well, although HPB may not have known this.  In
> what sense is it fair to call these fragments of evidence a
> house of cards?  They certainly do not constitute conclusive
> proof of the hypotheses offered, but this is made abundantly
> clear in the book.  The implication of Mr. Caldwell's phrase,
> however, is that the pieces of evidence are themselves flimsy,
> and that the construction is such that removal of one causes
> the whole structure to collapse.  Most of the evidence cited
> above is not flimsy; it is derived from historical records,
> Theosophical and otherwise, the reliability of which has not
> been seriously questioned heretofore.  When I do cite Mahatma
> letters, the most historically questionable sources, it is in
> reference to specific times, places and names related to
> information in other sources.  While there is room for doubt
> about reliability of those sources, they are by no means as
> dubious as literature that was written deliberately to create
> a particular impression in support of a particular agenda.
> That is a crucial qualitative difference between this evidence
> and that which I reject as disinformation, as explained in the
> following section.  But more importantly, the pieces of
> evidence for my identifications of Morya and Koot Hoomi are by
> and large independent of one another.  Theosophical orthodoxy
> on the Masters, on the other hand, *does* rely on a domino-like
> series of suppositions, starting with the belief that HPB and
> Olcott consistently told the truth about them.  This is
> implicit in Mr. Caldwell's arguments, which portray me as
> arbitrarily choosing which evidence to regard as credible
> based on what supports my own hypotheses.  He gets the cart
> before the horse, however, since judgments about the
> credibility of various evidence *led to* the construction of
> the hypotheses.  I did not start this investigation with a set
> of beliefs to be defended.  If Theosophists like Mr. Caldwell
> assume that I did so, it may be because this is their own
> approach to the data and that of previous writers on the
> subject of the Masters.
> > >