Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tl00028)

Critiques on K. Paul Johnson's Thesis concerning the Theosophical
Mahatmas M. & K.H.

by Daniel H. Caldwell

Some subscribers to Theos-Talk and Theos-L may be interested in the
following critiques on K. Paul Johnson's thesis concerning the
Theosophical Mahatmas Morya and Koot Hoomi.  

I get on the average 3 or 4 emails a week in regards to the
critiques done by David Pratt and myself on Johnson's thesis.
We have completely run out of paper copies of my HOUSE OF CARDS
critique and we have decided to reprint it as a pamphlet for
mass distribution.  We will be adding a number of appendices.

I give below an overview of the various critiques with their
World Wide Web (http) addresses.  I especially urge Theosophical
students to read David Pratt's excellent critique.  I want to
quote at this point from my REPLY to Johnson's rebuttal of my HOUSE OF
CARDS which I have titled:

Methinks Johnson Has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot": Comments on Some of
Johnson's Rebuttal Remarks 
http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johntabl.htm
by Daniel H. Caldwell

The Introduction is as follows:

"My critique titled K. Paul Johnson's House of Cards? was 
published in late 1996 both in paper copy and as
a World Wide Web document. Several months later K. Paul Johnson
published on the WWW his rebuttal STRAIN AT A GNAT, SWALLOW A 
CAMEL: A Reply to Daniel Caldwell's Criticisms.

I want to thank Mr. Johnson for the time and effort he 
took to reply to my critique of his thesis on the
Theosophical Mahatmas. His rebuttal has helped me to 
understand his position better. Unfortunately, Johnson
made many unwarranted statements and fallacious arguments in his
rebuttal. There are at least 40 points in his
rebuttal needing refutation and correction. It would 
probably take a few hundred pages to deal adequately with
these 40 points. I have written . . . detailed answers to two of his
points. I seriously don't understand his
"reasoning" in these two instances. I believe that his arguments in
these two instances are fallacious and I have
tried to show that with detailed analysis. I welcome *substantive*
comments especially from any of Johnson's
"defenders." I would love to understand the "logic" of his two points.
Please email me at blafoun@azstarnet.com "

Many readers of my latest reply have written me thanking me for
exposing the illogic of Johnson's reasoning. They have expressed sheer
amazement with Johnson's contradictory and illogical
arguments.  I'm glad other persons are equally amazed with me concerning
Johnson's "arguments."

I give below all the published critiques with their http
addresses on the WWW:
(1)

K. PAUL JOHNSON’S HOUSE OF CARDS?

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF JOHNSON'S THESIS ON 
THE THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS MORYA AND KOOT HOOMI 
http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johnson.htm

by Daniel H. Caldwell

Contents:

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? 

Part VII: Conclusion 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ON JOHNSON'S THESIS CONCERNING THE THEOSOPHICAL
MAHATMAS IS AS FOLLOWS:

(2)

STRAIN AT A GNAT, SWALLOW A CAMEL: A Reply to Daniel Caldwell's
Criticisms 
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/pjimp.html
by K. Paul Johnson 

(3)

Methinks Johnson Has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot": Comments on Some of
Johnson's Rebuttal Remarks 
http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johntabl.htm
by Daniel H. Caldwell

(4)

The Theosophical Mahatmas: A Critique of Paul Johnson's New Myth 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/johnson.htm
by David Pratt