Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00113)

SUBJECT: Dallas T. and Katinka H. on Paul's Johnson's Works on the Masters

DALLAS WRITES:

>> So, to try to link up the MASTERS who stand behind the
>> Theosophical Movement with some Punjabi Sikh family or some
>> Brahmin family in Kashmir, etc is to trivialize THEM and to
>> attempt to make of Theosophy the casual and baseless statements
>> of the vulgar. 
 
KATINKA REPLIED:
  
>Sounds to me like you don't really believe actual people can become
>mahatmas, let alone Buddhas. Now, obviously you are free to have that
>opinion, but really, I do not think HPB would have shared it.

DANIEL COMMENTS:

I agree with Katinka's comments. Dallas, why would it trivialize 
the Masters IF IT IS TRUE that they can be linked with some Punjabi 
Sikh family, etc. The only question to answer is: is there reliable 
historical evidence to prove the linkage. Is the conection made by Paul
Johnson true or not, proven or not proven? If the linkage is there and
you feel that that trivializes the Masters, then that is your right to
have that opinion. But it is not the central question at least from 
my understanding of the matter. I think you are confusing two separate
issues here.

 
DALLAS WRITES:
>> In my long residence in India including
>> schooling, youth, and subsequent business in printing, publishing
>> and bookselling in India I was constantly with my friends and at
>> various times in those parts of the country where I could look
>> into the
>> Historical links of early Theosophy. I was interested in that
>> and have verified (several times) by asking and listening to
>> independent accounts that it was not possible to link the
>> MAHATMAS to any ordinary family connections there.

KATINKA REPLIED:

>That does not prove a thing. Loads of people investigated physics at the
>same time and in the same directions as Einstein did, yet only Einstein
>came up with the theory of relativity. Not saying Paul is that much of
a
>genius, but to have investigated and not come up with anything does not
>at
>all indicate that someone elses investigation in the same matter cannot
>have a different outcome and be right. 

DANIEL COMMENTS:

Again Katinka I think your argument here is on solid ground.
Dallas, what do you mean when you write:

". . . it was not possible to link the MAHATMAS to any ordinary family connections
there." Maybe it wasn't possible in your situation to make
the linkage. But Dallas, are you saying it is not possible under any
circumstances to ascertain the ordinary family connections of one of HPB's
Teachers? And if you are, what is your reasoning for this conclusion?
Didn't Master M and KH have families?? There may or may not be historical
evidence to now show that linkage, but if you believe the Masters were
physical then they should have a historical reality that might be documented.
Dallas, your whole line of reasoning is totally unclear to me. Would you
please
try to make it clearer both for Katinka and other readers including me?


DALLAS WRITES:

>> Many here in this part of the world would have to travel to India
>> and then learn the languages and assimilate the country and its
>> lore, if they want to penetrate deeply into such matters, after
>> they are able to secure the trust and intimate friendship needed,
>> to even open a discussion on such matters. Most investigators
>> are given a superficial glaze, after it is found they are
>> themselves motivated not by reverence, but by personal notoriety
>> seeking.

KATINKA REPLIED:

>Well, I was in India only one month, and did not learn any of the
>languages (except English), yet one *native theosophist* (sounds horrible
>to say it like this, but well, he was an Indian) told me quite openly of
>his meetings with some sages in the snows near Tibet. People tell me that
>kind of experience, even when having known me for a short period of time.
>Now I know I am probably in several ways an exception to the rule, but
>perhaps Paul is too and you are not? ...

DANIEL COMMENTS:

Again I think Katinka's comment are right on the mark. Again, Dallas what
relevance does your remarks here have to Paul Johnson's research?  

DALLAS WRITES:

>> It is for this reason that I challenged Johnson. I asked several
>> questions originally which he has not yet answered. He has been
>> upset by them, but they are not answered.
>> 
>> Theosophy does not depend on who the MASTERS may have as
>> physiological heredity. Theosophy depends solely on whether it
>> is fair, reasonable, ethical, and all-encompassing. To determine
>> that one has to master its metaphysics and study the spread of
>> HISTORY which it displays in all departments of science, art, and
>> other affairs. This means spending a few month to at least get
>> acquainted with H.P.B. and her ORIGINAL MESSAGE.


KATINKA REPLIED:

>I kind of agree here. For me it would have seemed like a waste of time
to
>investigate the history behind the Mahatmas. Their message is more
>important to me than their physical surroundings. But now that Paul has
>investigated this, as he had of course every right to, why not see it for
>what it is worth: a look into the physical realities behind the myths
>around the Mahatmas. 

DANIEL COMMENTS:

I think Katinka has again seen the issues in proper perspective.
Dallas I think you are confusing two separate issues. See how you phrase
it: "Theosophy does not depend on who the MASTERS may have as physiological
heredity." Whoever said this about Theosophy? Paul Johnson never claimed
that, did he? Paul tried to investigate the historical realm involving
HPB
and her Masters in his three books. This is a separate study and does not
necessarily have any bearing on the study of Theosophy. Again, Dallas,
you
stray away from the central issue: What are the historical facts that either
support or negate Paul Johnson's thesis on the Mahatmas, especially on Masters
M. and K.H. The study of the philosophical system called Theosophy will
not directly help us to answer these historical questions and solve the
historical issues. Wait until Paul Johnson writes a book whose sole aim
is to
explore and understand the Theosophical teachings then you can deal with
these philosophical and theoretical aspects. 

Dallas, what were the questions you asked Paul that you say he did not
answer. 


DALLAS WRITES:

>> What people may think of it, or write about it, is not as
>> important as what YOU DETERMINE IN YOUR OWN MIND AND HEART
>> concerning it. Does it open doors and windows into your own
>> perceptions of your nature? Do you understand yourself better?
>> Can you (and me, of course) begin to grasp the problems of an
>> IMMORTAL MONAD and REASONING ENTITY having to dwell in a
>> constantly changing FORM -- one in which it can only project an
>> unstable IMAGE of ITSELF ?


KATINKA REPLIED:

>Agreed, totally, but that does not mean that Paul's research is invalid.
>Just gives the reason why neither you nor I have gone into that direction
>in our study. I mean, the above is the exact reason I am not now a
>scientist (of say chemistry, or math, or computer science), but that does
>not prevent me from enjoying the fact that other people are fools enough
>to spend their lifes energy studying those subjects and learning from what
>they have to teach me. (I read the Scientific American with pleasure for
>instance). 

>Well, I don't mind, but you really have not given me any reason to doubt
>that Paul's idea's about the Mahatmas are probably very near the truth.

DANIEL COMMENTS:

Dallas if you are going to object to Paul's historical statements then
please give us historical statements, evidence etc to show that Paul's research
is wanting in this or that aspect. Vague general statements serve no good
purpose. Historical details are what are needed.

Katinka, BELOW are three commentaries on Paul Johnson's work that deal with
the historical issues and provide analysis of Johnon's statements, etc.
They
are:

(1) Caldwell, Daniel H. "K. Paul Johnson's House of Cards?: A Critical
Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot
Hoomi." http://www.blavatsky.net/gen/refute/caldwell/johnson.htm

(2) Caldwell, Daniel H. "Methinks Johnson Has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot":
Daniel H. Caldwell Replies to Some of K. Paul Johnson's Rebuttal Remarks."
http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/johnsonparanormal.htm

(3) Pratt, David. "The Theosophical Mahatmas: A Critique of Paul Johnson's
New Myth." http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/johnson.htm 

Paul Johnson replied to Item (1) in the following piece:

"STRAIN AT A GNAT, SWALLOW A CAMEL: A Reply to Daniel Caldwell's Criticisms"
by K. Paul Johnson http://members.tripod.com/~dlane5/pjimp.html

And I replied to a few of his rebuttal statement in item (2) above.

Katinka, I hope you will look at this material and give us your assessment.

And Dallas, I look forward to your comments on what I've said above.



---------------------------------------
Daniel H. Caldwell
info@blavatskyarchives.com
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
---------------------------------------
http://blavatskyarchives.com
http://blavatskyarchives.com/esotericworld.htm
http://blavatsky.cc
http://theosophyonthe.net

You can always access our main site by
simply typing into the URL address
bar the following 6 characters:

hpb.cc
---------------------------------------