Theos-Talk Archives (September 1997 Message tl00373)

K. Paul Johnson and His Understanding of  the Paranormal;  or Methinks
Johnson has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot"

by Daniel H. Caldwell

K. Paul Johnson writes in his rejoinder to my HOUSE OF CARDS about
some of the cases that I quoted in Part II of my critique.  Below are Johnson's
comments.  After his comments I quote the cases Johnson refers to.  

Please read these accounts and ask yourself which case appears to involve the
paranormal?  Which case shows elements of the paranormal?  Compare these 
cases for yourself.  Which case appears (to quote Johnson's own words) 
 "more like paranormal visitations than normal physical visits"?

***My own observations are at the end of this posting.***

Johnson's comments are as follows: 
___________________________________________________

     In his case for evaluating all claims by Col. Olcott about
the Masters by a single standard, Mr. Caldwell cites a letter
in which Olcott reported being awakened from sleep in Ceylon in
1881 by Morya, who made him take dictation for an hour.  He
then goes on to describe a case where Morya "showed himself" to
Olcott and HPB, and an "appearance" by Morya before six other
people.  All of these are equated with the Ooton Liatto case,
which is much more clearly one of *physically* present people
conversing with Olcott.  But Mr. Caldwell does not seem to
recognize that these "appearances" sound more like paranormal
visitations than normal physical visits.  How can he assume
that such appearances, if genuine, were not Ranbir Singh, since
he does not know whether or not the maharaja was capable of
such phenomena?  What does he know of other people who were,
who might therefore be more plausible candidates for the Morya in
these stories?  This section of his argument shows naivete in
conflating different categories of evidence.  The principle
which seems to elude Mr. Caldwell is that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof.  My explanation of HPB's
relationship with the Masters relies on ordinary factors and is
based on ordinary historical evidence.  Mr. Caldwell is
defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the Masters, on
behalf of which he cites evidence of a far more dubious and
ambiguous kind. . . .
__________________________________________________
[End of Johnson's comments]

Now I quote Olcott's accounts of the Masters as given in HOUSE OF CARDS:
_________________________________________________
CASE A:  OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON LIATTO. 

"...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[ther]...[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...." (Olcott's account is given in full in Theosophical 
History, Jan., 1994.) 
_________________________________________________
CASE B:  OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MORYA IN CEYLON

"...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. . . ." (Quoted in Hints On Esoteric Theosophy,
No. 1, 1882, pp. 82-83.
_____________________________________________________
CASE C:  OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MORYA AT BOMBAY

In his diary for Jan. 29, 1882, Colonel Olcott pens this brief entry:

"M[orya] showed himself very clearly to me & HPB in her garden....
she joining him they talked together...." 
_____________________________________________________

CASE D:  OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF SEEING MORYA AT BOMBAY WITH
SIX OTHER WITNESSES

"We were sitting together in the moonlight about 9 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:
"Ross Scott, Minnie J.B. Scott, H.S. Olcott, H.P. Blavatsky, 
M. Moorad Ali Beg, Damodar K. Mavalankar, and Bhavani
Shankar Ganesh Mullapoorkar." (Quoted from Hints On Esoteric 
Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, pp. 75-76.) 

>From Olcott's diary for Jan. 5, 1882, 

"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...."
_____________________________________________________
Case E:  MORYA COMES TO BOMBAY ON AUGUST 4, 1880

On August 4, 1880, Olcott writes that:

". . . 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.  I left him [the Mahatma] sitting in H.P.B.'s room...."
[Old Diary Leaves, Volume II, 1972 printing, p. 208]" 

And Olcott's actual handwritten diary for August 4, 1880 reads: 

"M [orya] here this evening & wrote to Fauvety of Paris. He says 5000
English troops killed in Afghanistan in the recent battle. . . ." 
________________________________________________________________

And the last case I cite is Olcott's 1879 encounter 
with the Master Morya at Bombay.  I quoted this case in Part I
of HOUSE OF CARDS.  Does this 1879 event have any more 
paranormal elements to it than the Ooton Liatto account?  
_________________________________________________
Case F

"This same Brother 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 [Morya] 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 to 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. Quoted in Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, 
No. 1, 1882, p. 80.)    
_________________________________________________

Johnson's basic criticism appears to be:

" All of these [cases] are equated [by Caldwell] with the Ooton Liatto case,
which is MUCH MORE CLEARLY one of *physically* present people
conversing with Olcott.  But Mr. Caldwell does not seem to
recognize that these "appearances" SOUND MORE LIKE PARANORMAL 
visitations than normal physical visits. . . . Mr. Caldwell is
defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the Masters, on
behalf of which he cites evidence of A FAR MORE DUBIOUS AND 
AMBIGUOUS KIND."  Caps added.

No, I was not trying to defend "extraordinary claims." Cases B, C ,D
E and F *may* involve the paranormal but not necessarily so.  Can
Johnson specifically tell us what are the paranormal "features" of each
of these cases?

But when Johnson writes that the "Ooton Liatoo case. . . 
"is much more clearly one of *physically* present people conversing with
Olcott", I do not understand Johnson's thinking in this matter at all!!!!
The Ooton
Liatoo case is FULL of paranormal features (many of which I did not quote in my
critique; see Johnson's book for a fuller version).

In the Ooton Liatoo incident, Olcott writes in part:

"I asked Liatto 
if he knew Madam B[lavatsky]....The elder Bro[ther]...[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...."

Is THIS series of events so "normal" and "ordinary", I ask?  
And what about  the rain shower, etc!!! 
The incident REEKS of the paranormal yet Johnson
can write (with all seriousness??) ) that this Ooton Liatto case is "much more 
clearly one of *physically* present people conversing with Olcott."  

Someone should ask Dr. Joscelyn Godwin what he thinks of this "Ooton Liatto"
case.    : )
[Dr. Godwin is the person who first discovered Olcott's letter on Ooton
Liatto and published it
in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY.]

Do "*physically* present people" disappear and appear in the manner 
described by Olcott??!!   And then Johnson (without cracking a smile)
 in the next sentence can write the following:

" But Mr. Caldwell does not seem to
recognize that these "appearances" [ Cases B, C, D, E and F??] sound
 more like paranormal visitations than normal physical visits. . . .The
principle which seems to elude Mr. Caldwell is that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof. . . . . Mr. Caldwell is
defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the Masters, on
behalf of which he cites evidence of a far more dubious and
ambiguous kind."

Is the Ooton Liatto case any LESS  "dubious and ambiguous" than Cases
B,C D E and F?  Are we seeing Johnson's "double standard" at work again in
his thinking on this subject of the paranormal??

Does Johnson expect anyone to take his criticism seriously?  Instead of 
"shooting" me, I think Johnson has only "shot" himself in the "foot."

In a week or so I will reply to some of Johnson's other criticisms of my
HOUSE OF CARDS.