Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tt00005)

K. Paul Johnson writes on theos-l:

> I find it interesting that Daniel Caldwell denies that he is
> motivated by a rigid belief system in his attacks on my work.
> This theme is a significant part of my reply to his "House of
> Cards" which has been completed weeks ago but awaits a techie to
> help Dr.  Lane upload it onto his website.  That rigid belief
> system is quite apparent in his writings, although I accept his
> statement as evidence that he is not aware of his own dogmatism.

Does it really matter what my motivations were in writing my
critique of Johnson's thesis on the Masters M.  and KH?

Does it really matter whether I am motivated by a rigid belief
system or not?

*Readers of my critique can look at the arguments I gave and the
evidence I cited and decide whether my arguments hold water or
not.* Have I presented evidence ,etc.  which shows that Johnson's
thesis is wrong? That is the question to be answered.

Even if my "motivations" intrude into the text, I would hope some
readers are intelligent enough to discern between those
"intrusions" and the issues, arguments and evidence presented in
my critique.

But here we see Johnson being a therapist and analysing my belief
system.  How does Johnson know what I really believe?

No doubt, I have a "belief" system.  Doesn't Johnson? Doesn't
most people? If I am wrong in my "beliefs" on the Masters, then
please tell me more than that I am wrong.  What am I not
considering? Where am I wrong in my assumptions, etc.? Win me
over with rational discussion, etc.  instead of simply telling me
I have a rigid belief system.

I have tried to show in some detail with numerous examples where
I believe Johnson has gone astray in his research on the Masters
M.  and K.H.  I would think that even Dr.  David Lane, who says
he knows little about Theosophical history, would be able to see
some of the points I attempted to make in the critique and some
of the issues involved.

It would appear that Johnson is using an ad hominem argument.
Johnson seems to be saying: Distract by focusing on Caldwell;
don't deal with the issues Caldwell raised in his critique.
Isn't this similar to those Theosophists who have questioned
Johnson's motivations instead of dealing with the substance of
Johnson's arguments? I have no idea what Johnson's motivations
were in writing his books.  I assume they were all good but I
don't really care.  Does Johnson really know what my belief
system is or how rigid it is? Or is he just blowing smoke to
distract from the issues I wrote about in HOUSE OF CARDS?

Here is part of my central argument in HOUSE OF CARDS:

"In summary, it would appear that Johnson wants to use some of
Olcott's testimony on the Masters to buttress his own thesis, but
would prefer to downplay or omit other testimony by Olcott that
is not consistent with and, in fact, contradicts his conjectures.
Although he accused Mr.  Richard-Nafarre of 'evading evidence,'
is Johnson not guilty himself of ignoring evidence and testimony
'presumably because it conflicts with other sources he prefers'?
Furthermore, Johnson is quite willing to accuse Ramaswamier of
lying when the latter's testimony of meeting Morya in Sikkim
contradicts ohnson's speculations.  But Olcott's testimony of the
Master Morya coming to Bombay on numerous occasions also runs
counter to Johnson's conjectures.  Is 'something' wrong with
Olcott's Bombay testimony? Is Johnson willing to entertain the
possibility that Olcott mmight also be giving false testimony?
But if Olcott is lying about the Master's appearances at Bombay,
who (except Johnson??) would be foolish enough to accept Olcott's
other testimony about adepts visiting him in New York, Amritsar,
and Lahore?"

"Let it be clearly understood, I am not suggesting that Olcott
lied about any of his meetings with the Adepts.  In fact, I agree
with Johnson that Olcott encountered real adepts in New York,
Amritsar and Lahore.  But I would go further and maintain that
the remaining encounters Olcott had with adepts at Bombay,
Colombo and elsewhere should also be taken at face value.  In
other words, if one wants to be consistent in one's thinking on
the subject, why accept some of Olcott's testimony on the Masters
while rejecting or at least ignoring the rest of it? Of course,
Johnson has a thesis that he is obliged to defend.  He has
committed himself to certain identifications of the Masters M.
and K.H.  Has Johnson painted himself into the proverbial
'corner'?"

To illustrate this argument of mine, I gave in my critique
numerous detailed examples from the primary Theosophical sources.

My critique on Johnson's thesis concerning M.  and K.H.  can be
found on the World Wide Web at this URL address:
http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johnson.htm

Daniel H. Caldwell