Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00111)

Concerning John R.  Crocker's Recent Comments on Theos-talk: the
Alleged "Squelching" of Discussion of K.  Paul Johnson's ideas,
and the "Real" Purpose of Criticism

John R. Crocker writes:

> Perhaps we also need a simultaneous reminder that Paul's book was
> exceedingly well received outside of TS circles ...  and that
> only two people seem to have been critical, one, a person that
> seems to have some personal vendetta, and the other, the
> President of the Wheaton TS - who, in his role as critic, blasted
> a book he refused to publish in his role as TPH chief.
>
> The ideas in the book may or may not be true - but they certainly
> deserved discussion in TS circles, and attempts certainly seemed
> to be made to try to squelch this.

Are you trying to tell us, John Crocker, that Dr.  Algeo and I
should not have been critical of Johnson's books and of his
various assertions? You are a person known to be very critical of
things, for example, various policies of the T.S.  Wheaton and
various ideas put forth by Eldon Tucker.  I have even heard
certain people say you had a "vendetta" against Wheaton! Whether
that is true or not, the question to be answered is whether your
criticisms are valid or not.  Do the criticisms have merit
regardless of the person making them?

I certainly have not made any attempt to squelch discussion in TS
circles (or outside of them) of Paul Johnson's ideas as found in
his books.  In fact, I have repeatedly told people in person, on
the phone and even on Theos-l that Theosophical students need to
read his books! All I have done is to point out what I think are
fallacies and weaknesses in his arguments and research.

Would you want me to refrain from that? Good god, John, people
can think for themselves, can't they? In my critique HOUSE OF
CARDS I have pointed out evidence, testimonies, which I believe
readers of Johnson's books need to know about in order to be in a
better position to assess the validity of his ideas and
arguments.  I have also pointed out mistakes in his statements
about the Theosophical Masters.  Is that so bad? Do you want to
"squelch" my criticisms? Would you want YOUR criticisms
squelched? I hope you don't have two standards here? One for you
and your "buddies" and another one for those you perceive on the
"other side" of the fence? : )

You want to have discussion of some of Johnson's ideas? Okay,
John, let's have a discussion of Johnson's views as given below
in my article.  Answer my questions.  Such discussion will maybe
get you, me and other people actually THINKING about the "ideas"
and "issues" involved.

Come on, John, if you are so much for discussion--- verbal give
and take--- and actually want to give your point of view AS WELL
AS listening to the "other" side, give us your honest answers to
the following questions that I pose.  Maybe, just maybe, you and
I (as well as others reading this) will learn something! Is that
possible? Is that so bad?

----

The Paranormal and Its Bearing on Henry S.  Olcott's Accounts of
the Theosophical Masters

by Daniel Caldwell

One of K.  Paul Johnson's arguments against certain criticisms
raised in my critique entitled HOUSE OF CARDS is 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.  .  .  .

My analysis of Johnson's comments is as follows:

What is K.  Paul Johnson's basic argument? What are the main
points of Johnson's argument?

As I read Johnson, his argument goes something like this:

(a) Johnson writes that there are TWO categories of evidence:

Category (1) evidence involving "ordinary factors", "ordinary
historical evidence"; and

Category (2) evidence involving the "paranormal", the
"extraordinary."

(b) Johnson contends that the "Ooton Liatto" case belongs to
category (1) involving "ordinary" evidence.  Johnson specifically
writes that the "Ooton Liatto" case is "MUCH MORE CLEARLY one of
*physically* present people conversing with Olcott." Johnson
himself puts the word "physically" inside astrisks.

(c) Johnson maintains that, on the other hand, Cases B, C, and D
belong to category (2) evidence involving the "paranormal".
Johnson writes that "these 'appearances' [Cases B, C and D] sound
more like PARANORMAL visitations than normal PHYSICAL visits."
These three cases, Johnson says , involve "evidence of a far more
dubious and ambiguous kind" in contrast to the "Ooton Liatto"
case (Case A).  [SEE BELOW AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE FOR THE
APPENDED CASES A-D AS WELL AS TWO OTHER RELEVANT CASES.]

(d) Johnson maintains that in an attempt to evaluate "all claims
by Col.  Olcott about the Masters by a SINGLE standard" Caldwell
has unfortunately conflated the two categories of evidence.
Johnson writes that "all of these [cases B, C and D] are EQUATED
[by Caldwell] with the Ooton Liatto case." Johnson goes on to
write that "this section of .  .  .  [Caldwell's ] argument shows
naivete in conflating [these two] different categories of
evidence."

(e) Johnson contends that (in light of all of the above) "Mr.
Caldwell is defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the
Masters." "The principle which seems to elude Mr.  Caldwell is
that extraordinary claims require extrordinary proof."

(f) Johnson maintains (that contrary to Caldwell's approach) his
own "explanation.  .  .  relies on ordinary factors and is based
on ordinary historical evidence." Specifically, Johnson writes
that the Ooton Liatto case involves "*physically* present people
conversing with Olcott." and therefore falls into the category
(1) of ordinary evidence

In the above statements (a-f) I have tried to EXPLICITLY describe
K.  Paul Johnson's argument.

Now, I specifically ask John Crocker:

How do you read Johnson's argument? Is my analysis and summary
correct? If not, what IS Johnson's argument? What is his specific
line of reasoning? Furthermore, John Crocker, is K.  Paul
Johnson's criticism valid or not?

Johnson brings up an interesting argument and I believe it is
very important to try to UNDERSTAND Johnson's criticism and
viewpoint.

----
Now I want to address the questions:

Are Johnson's points well taken? Does his argument hold up?

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 (as well as Cases 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" (Case A
appended below) "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,] 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 (as well as cases 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."

----

I append below the Ooton Liatto case (Case A) as well as Cases B
through F for ease of reference and comparison for those who
actually want to CROSS CHECK and COMPARE the material in order to
see the validity of Johnson's arguement and counterpoints as well
as the validity of my counter argument.

----

CASE A: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON LIATTO IN NEW YORK CITY

"...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...."

----

Below I cite two more cases that Johnson does not address in his
argument.  However, these two cases were quoted in my HOUSE OF
CARDS and are also germane to the issues under discussion.

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.
.  .  ."

Case F:  MORYA COMES ON HORSEBACK TO BOMBAY IN JULY, 1879

"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.)

"[I] had visit in body of the Sahib [Morya]!! [He] sent Babula to
my room to call me to H.P.B.'s bungalow, and there we had a most
important private interview...." (Extract from Olcott's
handwritten diary for Tuesday, July 15, 1879.)