Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00011)

World Wide Web Availability of "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF
CARDS?" by Daniel H. Caldwell

Thanks to everyone who has requested a copy of my 43 page paper
titled K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS? The subtitle reads: "A
Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical
Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi." The paper has a two page appendix
written by David Reigle, author of the work THE BOOKS OF KIU-TE,
etc. (1983).

My paper takes a serious, detailed look at Johnson's thesis.
Johnson's conjectures on these two Masters are shown to be highly
implausible and dubious when carefully scrutinized in light of
all the known testimony and evidence. Primary source documents
are quoted IN DETAIL

A copy is NOW available on the World Wide Web. This copy can be
accessed through the courtesy of BLAVATSKY NET at this URL
address:

http://www.blavatsky.org

On the first page of the Blavatsky Net Homepage, look for the
section on: "Refutations of Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky."

In this section my paper is introduced with these words:

"Rebuttal of K. Paul Johnson's books --- Johnson is selling
three books that generate still more false ideas about Blavatsky.
Daniel Caldwell of Blavatsky Foundation has prepared an in-depth
and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson."

If you do not have access to the World Wide Web, I can send you a
paper copy of HOUSE OF CARDS. Please notify me by e-mail at:
blafoun@azstarnet.com

I have been notified by Dr. David C. Lane that he will also be
giving access to my paper on his web page "The Neural Surfer" at
the URL address: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/

My paper is NOT available yet at Dr. Lane's homepage but as soon
as K. Paul Johnson's "Reply" to my paper is finished and ready
for dissemination, I assume both papers will then be available at
the "Neural Surfer" location.

I also welcome comments on my paper. I have received numerous
replies mostly thanking me for writing the paper. I am also
looking forward to any comments showing fallacies in my
arguments, etc. against Johnson's thesis. I am always open to
other people's views on this subject. If I am somehow mistaken
in my views, I certainly would like to know. But if someone
tells me I have mistaken ideas, then I always ask them to please
explain their own views in detail and to go step by step through
their thinking process on the subject. Serious consideration of
any subject requires this indepth kind of discussion and
analysis. Can we afford to ask for any thing less in a world
full of such conflicting claims and misinformation?

Daniel H. Caldwell