Theos-Talk Archives (September 1997 Message tt00038)

K. Paul Johnson and His Understanding of the Paranormal; or
Methinks Johnson has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot"

by Daniel H. Caldwell

K. Paul Johnson writes in his rejoinder to my HOUSE OF CARDS
about some of the cases that I quoted in Part II of my critique.
Below are Johnson's comments. After his comments I quote the
cases Johnson refers to.

Please read these accounts and ask yourself which case appears to
involve the paranormal? Which case shows elements of the
paranormal? Compare these cases for yourself. Which case appears
(to quote Johnson's own words) "more like paranormal visitations
than normal physical visits"?

***My own observations are at the end of this posting.***

Johnson's comments are as follows:

> In his case for evaluating all claims by Col. Olcott about the
> Masters by a single standard, Mr. Caldwell cites a letter in
> which Olcott reported being awakened from sleep in Ceylon in 1881
> by Morya, who made him take dictation for an hour. He then goes
> on to describe a case where Morya "showed himself" to Olcott and
> HPB, and an "appearance" by Morya before six other people. All
> of these are equated with the Ooton Liatto case, which is much
> more clearly one of *physically* present people conversing with
> Olcott. But Mr. Caldwell does not seem to recognize that these
> "appearances" sound more like paranormal visitations than normal
> physical visits. How can he assume that such appearances, if
> genuine, were not Ranbir Singh, since he does not know whether or
> not the maharaja was capable of such phenomena? What does he know
> of other people who were, who might therefore be more plausible
> candidates for the Morya in these stories? This section of his
> argument shows naivete in conflating different categories of
> evidence. The principle which seems to elude Mr. Caldwell is
> that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. My
> explanation of HPB's relationship with the Masters relies on
> ordinary factors and is based on ordinary historical evidence.
> Mr. Caldwell is defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the
> Masters, on behalf of which he cites evidence of a far more
> dubious and ambiguous kind. . . .

Now I quote Olcott's accounts of the Masters as given in HOUSE OF
CARDS:

CASE A: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON LIATTO.

> ...I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when there came a
> tap at the door---I said 'come in' and there entered the
> [younger] Bro[ther] with another dark skinned gentleman of about
> fifty....We took cigars and chatted for a while....[Then Olcott
> relates that a rain shower started in the room. Olcott continues
> the account:] They sat there and quietly smoked their cigars,
> while mine became too wet to burn....finally the younger of the
> two (who gave me his name as Ooton Liatto) said I needn't worry
> nothing would be damaged....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam
> B[lavatsky]....the elder Bro[ther]...[said] that with her
> permission they would call upon her. I ran downstairs---rushed
> into Madams parlour---and---there sat these same two identical
> men smoking with her and chatting....I said nothing but rushed up
> stairs again tore open my door and---the men were not there---I
> ran down again, they had disappeared--- I . . . looked out the
> window---and saw them turning the corner....

(Olcott's account is given in full in Theosophical History, Jan.,
1994.)

CASE B: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MORYA IN CEYLON

> ...on the night of that day [Sept. 27th, 1881] I was awakened
> from sleep by my Chohan (or Guru, the Brother [Morya] whose
> immediate pupil I am)....He made me rise, sit at my table and
> write from his dictation for an hour or more. There was an
> expression of anxiety mingled with sternness on his noble face,
> as there always is when the matter concerns H.P.B., to whom for
> many years he has been at once a father and a devoted guardian.
> . .

(Quoted in Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, pp. 82-83.

CASE C: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MORYA AT BOMBAY

In his diary for Jan. 29, 1882, Colonel Olcott pens this brief
entry:

> M[orya] showed himself very clearly to me & HPB in her garden....
> she joining him they talked together....

CASE D: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF SEEING MORYA AT BOMBAY WITH SIX OTHER
WITNESSES

> We were sitting together in the moonlight about 9 o'clock upon
> the balcony which projects from the front of the bungalow. Mr.
> Scott was sitting facing the house, so as to look through the
> intervening verandah and the library, and into the room at the
> further side. This latter apartment was brilliantly lighted.
> The library was in partial darkness, thus rendering objects in
> the farther room more distinct. Mr. Scott suddenly saw the
> figure of a man step into the space, opposite the door of the
> library; he was clad in the white dress of a Rajput, and wore a
> white turban. Mr. Scott at once recognized him from his
> resemblance to a portrait [of Morya] in Col. Olcott's
> possession. Our attention was then drawn to him, and we all saw
> him most distinctly. He walked towards a table, and afterwards
> turning his face towards us, walked back out of our sight...when
> we reached the room he was gone....Upon the table, at the spot
> where he had been standing, lay a letter addressed to one of our
> number. The handwriting was identical with that of sundry notes
> and letters previously received from him....

The statement is signed by: "Ross Scott, Minnie J.B. Scott, H.S.
Olcott, H.P. Blavatsky, M. Moorad Ali Beg, Damodar K.
Mavalankar, and Bhavani Shankar Ganesh Mullapoorkar."
(Quoted from Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, pp. 75-76.)

	From Olcott's diary for Jan. 5, 1882,

> Evening. Moonlight. On balcony, HPB, Self, Scott & wife,
> Damodar....[etc]...M[orya] appeared in my office. First seen by
> Scott, then me....Scott clearly saw M's face....M left note for
> me on table in office by which he stood....

Case E: MORYA COMES TO BOMBAY ON AUGUST 4, 1880

On August 4, 1880, Olcott writes that:

> . . . a Mahatma visited H.P.B., and I was called in to see him
> before he left. He dictated a long and important letter to an
> influential friend of ours at Paris, and gave me important hints
> about the management of current Society affairs. I left him [the
> Mahatma] sitting in H.P.B.'s room....
>
> [Old Diary Leaves, Volume II, 1972 printing, p. 208]

And Olcott's actual handwritten diary for August 4, 1880 reads:

> M[orya] here this evening & wrote to Fauvety of Paris. He says
> 5000 English troops killed in Afghanistan in the recent battle.
> . . .

And the last case I cite is Olcott's 1879 encounter with the
Master Morya at Bombay. I quoted this case in Part I of HOUSE OF
CARDS. Does this 1879 event have any more paranormal elements to
it than the Ooton Liatto account?

Case F

> This same Brother once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming
> in full day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a
> servant into the front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow (she being at
> the time in the other bungalow talking with those who were
> there). He [Morya] came to scold me roundly for something I had
> done in T.S. matters, and as H.P.B. was also to blame, he
> telegraphed to her to come, that is to say, he turned his face
> and extended his finger in the direction of the place she was in.
> She came over at once with a rush, and seeing him dropped to her
> knees and paid him reverence. My voice and his had been heard by
> those in the other bungalow, but only H.P.B. and I, and the
> servant saw him.

(Extract from a letter written by Colonel Olcott to A.O. Hume on
Sept. 30, 1881. Quoted in Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1,
1882, p. 80.)

Johnson's basic criticism appears to be:

> All of these [cases] are equated [by Caldwell] with the Ooton
> Liatto case, which is MUCH MORE CLEARLY one of *physically*
> present people conversing with Olcott. But Mr. Caldwell does
> not seem to recognize that these "appearances" SOUND MORE LIKE
> PARANORMAL visitations than normal physical visits. . . . Mr.
> Caldwell is defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the
> Masters, on behalf of which he cites evidence of A FAR MORE
> DUBIOUS AND AMBIGUOUS KIND.

Caps added.

No, I was not trying to defend "extraordinary claims." Cases B, C
,D E and F *may* involve the paranormal but not necessarily so.
Can Johnson specifically tell us what are the paranormal
"features" of each of these cases?

But when Johnson writes that the "Ooton Liatoo case. . . "is
much more clearly one of *physically* present people conversing
with Olcott", I do not understand Johnson's thinking in this
matter at all!!!! The Ooton Liatoo case is FULL of paranormal
features (many of which I did not quote in my critique; see
Johnson's book for a fuller version).

In the Ooton Liatoo incident, Olcott writes in part:

> I asked Liatto if he knew Madam B[lavatsky]....The elder
> Bro[ther]...[said] that with her permission they would call upon
> her. I ran downstairs---rushed into Madams parlour---and---there
> sat these same two identical men smoking with her and
> chatting....I said nothing but rushed up stairs again tore open
> my door and---the men were not there---I ran down again, they had
> disappeared--- I . . . looked out the window---and saw them
> turning the corner....

Is THIS series of events so "normal" and "ordinary", I ask? And
what about the rain shower, etc!!! The incident REEKS of the
paranormal yet Johnson can write (with all seriousness??) ) that
this Ooton Liatto case is "much more clearly one of *physically*
present people conversing with Olcott."

Someone should ask Dr. Joscelyn Godwin what he thinks of this
"Ooton Liatto" case. : ) [Dr. Godwin is the person who first
discovered Olcott's letter on Ooton Liatto and published it in
THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY.]

Do "*physically* present people" disappear and appear in the
manner described by Olcott??!! And then Johnson (without cracking
a smile) in the next sentence can write the following:

> But Mr. Caldwell does not seem to recognize that these
> "appearances" [ Cases B, C, D, E and F??] sound more like
> paranormal visitations than normal physical visits. . . .The
> principle which seems to elude Mr. Caldwell is that
> extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. . . . .
> Mr. Caldwell is defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the
> Masters, on behalf of which he cites evidence of a far more
> dubious and ambiguous kind.

Is the Ooton Liatto case any LESS "dubious and ambiguous" than
Cases B,C D E and F? Are we seeing Johnson's "double standard" at
work again in his thinking on this subject of the paranormal??

Does Johnson expect anyone to take his criticism seriously?
Instead of "shooting" me, I think Johnson has only "shot" himself
in the "foot."

In a week or so I will reply to some of Johnson's other
criticisms of my HOUSE OF CARDS.