[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Critiques of K.Paul Johnson's "Theories" on the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi

Nov 16, 1997 05:23 PM
by Caldwell/Graye

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
CARDS, etc.

Daniel Caldwell

Critiques of Johnson's "Theories" on the Theosophical
Masters are available on the WWW at:

Included at this site are:


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? 


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 
Rebuttal Remarks 


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 
plausible "historical"
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 
inconsistencies, contradictions,
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]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application