Critiques of K.Paul Johnson's "Theories" on the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi
Nov 16, 1997 05:23 PM
Critiques of K. Paul Johnson's "Theories" on the
Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi
K. Paul Johnson has written lately on Theos-Talk
that he refuses to comment on David Pratt's
critique of Johnson's Mahatmic theories. This
may be viewed by some as unfortunate, but interested
readers have Pratt's critique and can go over the
material if they choose and make up their own
minds. Hopefully, a few may go back to the original
sources, compare Johnson with Pratt and gain a
deeper understanding of the whole subject under
Johnson's books and the critiques of his various
"theories" give interested students of Theosophy
a chance to THINK thorough the various issues involved.
There has been too much "belief" or "disbelief" without
a good grasp of the true facts. Far too many people
are hesitant to think THROUGH the issues involved.
Below are the Internet sites for
my HOUSE OF CARDS critique of Johnson's books,
David Pratt's critique, Johnson's reply to my HOUSE OF
Critiques of Johnson's "Theories" on the Theosophical
Masters are available on the WWW at:
Included at this site are:
K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?:
A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on
the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi
by Daniel H. Caldwell
Part I: Johnson's Thesis in Light of Colonel H.S.
Olcott's Testimony about the Masters
Part II: Will The Real Master Morya Please Take
His Turban Off
Part III: Other Testimonies of Encounters with
the Master Morya
Part IV: Mohini Chatterji's Alleged "Deception"
Part V: 'Saib Kashmere' = 'Saib Morya' = Ranbir
Singh of Kashmir???
Part VI: Who's Pulling Whose Leg? Or How
Can You Tell When It Is "Disinformation" or Not?
STRAIN AT A GNAT, SWALLOW A CAMEL:
A Reply to Daniel Caldwell's Criticisms by K. Paul
Just click for this text at:
This is Johnson's reply to Caldwell's
HOUSE OF CARDS criticisms.
Methinks Johnson Has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot":
Daniel Caldwell Replies to Some of Johnson's
Part I: K. Paul Johnson's "Definition" of the Paranormal
and Its Bearing on Henry S. Olcott's Accounts
of the Theosophical Masters
Part II: The Fallacy in Another Johnsonian Argument
More parts are in preparation and will be added from
time to time in the coming months.
The Theosophical Mahatmas: A Critique of Paul
Johnson's New Myth
by David Pratt
Fact vs. fiction
The mahatma letters
Chelas and confederates
A "scheme of deception"?
A "disinformation pilgrimage"?
Fraudulent vs. genuine testimony
Babaji and "the whole truth"
Part of David Pratt's conclusion is as follows:
"Paul Johnson fails to produce any compelling,
concrete evidence to refute the view that the
portrayal of the masters by HPB,
the masters themselves, and their chelas is
essentially true. He exaggerates the discrepancies
in theosophical accounts of the
masters in order to dismiss most of what HPB
said on the subject as lies and disinformation.
He hypothesizes that the
theosophical masters were based on well-documented
historical figures, and points to a number of
extremely tenuous and
tentative links between Koot Hoomi and Thakar
Singh and between Morya and Ranbir Singh. He
admits that there is no
conclusive evidence to support these "identifications".
Many details concerning KH and M are reported in theosophical
literature that contradict these identifications. In these
instances, Johnson either speculates that a more
candidate may have been involved, or he dismisses
the details as irrelevant, imaginary, or disinformation.
His general position is
therefore an unfalsifiable dogma rather than
a testable hypothesis."
"Johnson shows an astonishing willingness to dismiss
all witnesses who offer testimony contrary to his pet
theory as liars and
frauds, but is happy to make use of anything reported
by these same witnesses that seems consistent with
his theory. He
quotes out of context and twists statements to suit
his beliefs. His interpretations lead to many
and absurdities. He fails to account for the
production of the mahatma letters, let alone their
content. Nor does he satisfactorily
account for the source of HPB's teachings or the
wide knowledge she displayed in her writings. . . ."
"Many of the deeper and more technical theosophical
teachings are impossible for us to prove, and whether
we consider them
worthy of study will largely depend on whether we
believe that HPB really was the messenger of the
Brotherhood. In a letter to Sinnett, referring to
Hume's arrogant and combative attitude, M wrote:
'either we are what we claim, or we are not.
[I]n the former case, however exaggerated the claims
made on behalf of our powers still, if our knowledge
and foresight do not transcend his, then we are no
better than shams and impostors
and the quicker he parts company with us -- the better
for him. But if we are in any degree what we claim to
be, then he acts like a wild ass.' (MLC 277 / ML 269)"
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application