Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00174)

"Oh, No! One More Reply to Paul Johnson from Daniel Caldwell"

This is my last reply to Paul Johnson on various comments of his
that I believe require additional comments.  In the future, I
will put any new comments about Paul's book on Theos-roots, as
suggested by Jerry S.

Concerning Liesel's suggestion to study the Mahatma Letters in
chronological order, I think this is a good idea and will
hopefully be more productive than the Caldwell-Johnson debate.

I do intend to write and publish (hopefully within the next 6
months) a critique of portions of Paul's THE MASTERS REVEALED.
And I will post it also on Theos-roots.  I will try my best to
deal with Paul's *ideas* and *methods* and not with Paul as a
person.

Paul has notified me in a *private* e-mail message that he will
not discuss his book and its ideas anymore in public.  That is
his choice and decision.  But everything he said in the *private*
e-mail message to me should have, in my opinion, been posted for
the world to see.  Some of what he said might have been
informative to others besides me.

It would seem from previous public postings on Theos-l that Paul
is very sensitive to criticism of his book and the ideas
expressed in the book.  For example, he wrote in a message dated
Mar 14, 1994, 07:36:

"But Dan's criticism reminds me of a scary warning given by M.
Gomes at the Chicago AAR conference....What Michael said was `you
will be attacked by Theosophists, in fact the attacks are already
underway.  But they can't get you for your research or your
logic, so they'll attack you as a bad person." I didn't ask who
`they' were, but Dan's focus on what is not in the book rather
than what is, and his use of the `omissions' as a basis for some
very dark insinuations/accusations against my honor, seemed to
fulfill the prophecy....And believe me, I feel 10 times more pain
from a Theosophist saying my book is evil than from some academic
saying it's poorly researched, or whatever...."

My comments are as follows:

(1) I am somewhat amazed by overstatement in this comment.  Yes,
I did criticize some of Paul's statements and some of his
methods, but did I insinuate that he was a "bad person" and offer
"very dark insinuations" against Paul's "honor"?

(2) Is Paul trying to say that I said his "book is evil"?

(3) And concerning this prophecy given by Michael Gomes, I for
one would like to hear Michael's version? Maybe Paul
misunderstood what Michael said?

(4) When was this Chicago AAR conference? In April 1993 I sent to
Paul Johnson (at *his* request) a critique of some of the ideas
in his book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS.  In this critique I
basically said what was only partially covered in my recent
posting on Theos-l.  True, Paul was not pleased with all my
criticisms but in the 1994 THE MASTERS REVEALED, Paul thanked me
for my "helpful criticisms" of 1993.

(5) It somewhat amazes me when Paul gets so bend out of shape
over criticisms directed against some of his ideas and his
handling of some of the material.  Paul admits that he gets
distressed at criticisms directed against his "work" but he can
also dish out the criticism when he is inclined to do so.  In the
above quoted statement he mentions "Dan's focus on what is not in
the book rather than what is, and his [Dan's] us of the
`omissions' as a basis for some very dark,
insinuations/accusations against my [Paul's] honor...."

[Correction: "and his [Dan's] use...."

Well, as I just said Paul can also dish out the criticism and
VERY SIMILAR criticism when he is so inclined.

I refer the reader to THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY, the Oct-1992-Jan.
1993 issue, pp.  158-160 to a review by Paul Johnson of a
biography on HPB by Noel Richard- Nafarre.  Please read the whole
review for context.  Now Paul says some complimentary things
about this biography, but he also offers some criticisms.  I
quote but a few selective extracts to illustrate:

"...a biographer must crefully study all relevant publications,
identify points disputed by previous writers, and try to reach
fair, objective resolutions...." [Correction: "...carefully
study...."

But then Paul writes:

"...Richard-Nafarre approaches H.P.B.  with the closed mind of a
True Believer...."

Again: "Haste and partisanship are all too evident in many loose
ends left unexplained...."

Again: "While Richard-Nafarre refers to all these sources, he
never mentions any discrepancies, thus evading the challenges of
explaining them."

Again: "Evasion is also found in selective use of Albert Rawson's
testimony ...Richard-Nafarre ignores this evidence...,presumably
because it conflicts with other sources he prefers."

Again: "Unexpected questions about use of sources arise...One can
only wonder how many secondary sources are thus concealed , and
what mtoivates [correction: "motivates"] such behavior."

And finally: Paul Johnson writes that Richard-Nafarre's biography
on HPB, that this biography's "scholarly credibility is
underminded by sectarian bias and a lack of thorough, objective
research."

Maybe what Paul says is absolutely true.  And possibly, Mr.
Richard- Nafarre felt, as a result of these criticisms,
"distress" and possibly even believed that Johnson had attacked
his "honor." Richard-Nafarre replied to Paul in a subsequent
issue.  My only point is that Paul Johnson can dish out the
criticism when he is inclined to do so.  But it seems to me (and
I may be sincerely mistaken) that he can't take the "heat" of
criticism of his own literary work without crying "foul"!

Knowing I am probably beating a dead horse, I will briefly cite
one other example of Paul Johnson's criticism of an author's
"omissions" of what Paul considers is relevant evidence, etc.

In THE ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST, Jan.-Feb, 1989 Paul does a review of
2 books by Jean Overton Fuller.  Most of the space is devoted to
the book BLAVTSKY AND HER TEACHERS.  Paul commends Miss Fuller on
many good aspects of the book but also offers the following
criticism:

"However, Fuller's BLAVATSKY AND HER TEACHERS...is at least as
much hagiography as biography....Hagiography...is characterized
by...a tendency to ignore evidence which does not fit the desired
image....In her eagerness to justify the `received view' of HPB's
veiled years, Fuller ignores many relevant clues.  Among the
significant questions not seriously addressed by Fuller
are.....[a list is then given]...."

Once again, maybe Johnson's criticisms are fully justified.  But
if I mention what I consider are relevant omissions in his text,
I have made "some very dark insinuations/accusations against" his
honor.

As they say, "If you can't take the heat....."

And if Paul is so concerned about "his honor" what about the
"honor" of Theosophists who are dead and can no longer defend
themselves against the "insinuations/accusations" [? let us say
rather "statements"] made in Paul's two books?

In order to butress his "hypotheses", his "suggestions", his
"version of the facts", Paul believes that "a cover story about
their [the Masters'] residence in a Tibetan ashram was promoted
and a number of false testimonies concocted as a diversionary
tactic.  Mahatma letters gave instructions for this
deception...." [p.  6 of THE MASTERS REVEALED.]

He quotes a snippet from a KH letter to Mohini Chatterji.  And
the suggestion is that "Koot Hoomi" is this letter tells Mohini
to lie and make up a series of incidents that never happened.
[Correction: "...that `Koot Hoomi' in this letter tells
Mohini..."]

Interested readers might turn to LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF
WISDOM, Series II [Volume II] and read the entire letter as well
as the article Mohini wrote as a result of KH's instruction.
Mohini's article is reproduced in Appendix B of this Series II
book.

Paul's speculation about "deception" is, yes, one interpretation
of the evidence but certainly not the only one and certainly, not
in my opinion, the most reasonable one.  But obviously, if what
Mohini's says in his article is true, accurate and factual, then
Johnson's theories may not be correct.  So the author of THE
MASTERS REVEALED chooses to impugn the "honor" of Mohini
Chaterji, a Theosophist who can no longer defend himself.

In Richard Hodgson's Report, Mohini testifies that he saw the
Master Koot Hoomi on the roof of the headquarters building at
Adyar.  Hodgson was told by Emma Coulomb that she (at HPB's
suggestion) dressed up as the Master and duped Mohini.  What
would the author of THE MASTERS REVEALED say?

Again, in Paul Johnson's first books IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS,
pp.  244-249, in a section entitled "False Witnesses and Real
Masters", the author suggests that S.  Ramaswamier, another
Theosophist, lied when he said that he had meet the Master Morya
on horseback in Sikkim.  Richard Hodgson, when dealing with
Ramaswamier's account of meeting the Master M., believes that
Ramaswamier was deceived by one of HPB's confederates.  Marion
Meade in her 1980 article believes Ramaswamier simply
hallucinated the whole encounter with the Master.  Paul Johnson's
interpretation is that Ramaswamier lied and made the whole
experience up.  On p.  247 of IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, Johnson
comments on Morya's appearance on horseback to Ramaswamier:

"The height and horsemanship are reminiscent of Ranbir Singh
[Maharaja of Kashmir], one protype for Master M.  But what could
he have been doing in Sikkim?" Johnson goes on to say that "this
tale" by Ramaswamier distracts the reader from the geographical
circumstances of the real M..."

Johnson's phrase is "...the real M...." Meaning the "individual"
that Johnson has speculated is the real person behind the persona
of M.

What is Johnson's thinking? Since I can't read his thoughts, I
will suggest that possibly Johnson speculated as follows:

"Well, let's see.  Since I have come up with the hypothesis that
Ranbir Singh is the "real" person behind the Morya persona, then
obviously Ramaswamier didn't encounter on the other side of India
the Maharaja of Kashmire.  Therefore, something must be wrong
with Ramaswamier's account.  He didn't see the "real" M.
Hmmm.....How can I reinterpret this incident so it will be
consistent with my hypothesis....." etc etc etc.

So Ramaswamier lied, deceived the world (of course at HPB's
insistence and with the real Masters' approval?).  Another
theosophist's "honor" and "honesty" impugned.

Thank you Richard Hodgson and Marion Meade for at leaving sparing
Rama- swamier's honor.

[Correcton: "Thank you Richard Hodgson and Marion Meade for at
LEAST sparing Ramaswamier's honor."

Enough of all this.  Probably most of you are simply bored with
all this old historical stuff.  Happened long time ago.  Who
cares?

And probably Paul Johnson is even more convinced that I am out to
get him personally!

But that is not the case either.  For all the know and I accept
it, Paul Johnson is a sincere individual.  But that does not mean
that his ideas and reasoning,therefore, are valid.

There is much more that could be said but we will save this for
another time.  I will at some point post either the complete
review of his book on Theos-roots or possibly do it in
installments and post them one at a time.

I wish Paul the best in his future historical explorations and
will always be an attentive reader.  But I wish he would also
remember that maybe what he writes *distresses* others who also
seek for the truth as much as he does.  And if he feels that I or
someone else has trashed his honor, he might reflect on the
possiblity that he also has impugned other peoples' "honor"
including Theosophists who are dead and can speak up in their own
defense.

Sometimes to speak honestly and openly seems harsh, but it is
better to do that than to keep silent to pacify those who believe
brotherhood (or whatever one should call it) is something in
which one never speaks a truth (as you perceive it) least others
might be "distressed".  I believe Paul has tried to follow that
path, but he should not forget that others too have their paths
to walk.

Daniel