Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00035)

"One thing quite inexplicable about Mr.  Caldwell's publicity": A
CLARIFICATION

K.  Paul Johnson writes in two recent postings:

1st posting:

> One thing quite inexplicable about Mr.  Caldwell's publicity for
> his piece is his claim that he has prepared an "in-depth and
> scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson." What thesis?
> There are 32 people nominated as HPB's Masters in TMR, and
> Caldwell devoted the entirety of his 42 page argument to
> attacking my case for two of them.  So his "debunking" attempt is
> in fact focused on two hypotheses only, and he doesn't even state
> what "the thesis of Johnson" is.....

2nd posting:

> .....He acknowledges he's only dealing with two out of the 32,
> and nowhere *in* the piece claims to be debunking anything called
> "the thesis." That claim only appeared later.  So the number of
> Masters discussed in his piece and the claims made in it are
> indeed a matter of fact.  The disagreement appears to be about
> what can be claimed to have been accomplished after the fact.
> (Surprise!).

Daniel Caldwell replies:

I append at the end of these comments the "publicity" statement
that Johnson refers to.  Inexplicable?? In the "publicity
statement" I clearly state: "The subtitle reads: 'A Critical
Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya
and Koot Hoomi.' "

When Johnson writes that I claim I have prepared an "in-depth and
scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson," Johnson is
mistaken that this is MY claim.  These words in quotation marks
are what the Blavatsky Net people wrote about my paper.  I wrote
in the publicity piece:

> 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."

What thesis? Read my subtitle which is clearly given at the
beginning of the "publicity" piece.  Nevertheless, I can see how
Johnson may have jumped to his conclusion.

But the second paragraph of my publicity piece reads in part: "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"

Notice that I write: "....Johnson's conjectures on these TWO
Masters...."

And when you click to the title page of my paper from The
Blavatsky Net site, the title clearly reads: K.  PAUL JOHNSON'S
HOUSE OF CARDS:

"A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical
Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi."

Johnson again tells us that his overall thesis is about 32
individuals being nominated as HPB's Masters.  But it is
interesting to observe that both Johnson and Godwin in their
introductory foreword and introduction to THE MASTERS REVEALED
specifically mention (and highlight) the identifications of the
two Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi.  And Johnson in his
introduction even writes that he has made a persuasive case for
the identifications of these 2 Masters.

In summary, I would think that most people reading the publicity
piece carefully and in context would understand what "thesis" is
being discussed in my paper.

"Mr.  Caldwell's publicity for his piece" (as Johnson describes
it) is appended below in full.

----

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