Brigitte brings up again Paul Johnson's composite theory about the Masters
Dec 02, 2001 11:02 AM
Brigitte wrote and quotes Paul Johnson:
"Paul Johnson in ref. to the 'Koot Hoomi'/ Nisi Kanta Chattopadhyana'
an hypothesis brought forward by Steve Stubbs wrote: 'Finding matches
for K.H. and M. so perfect as to remove all question about
fictionalization or composite characters is impossible IMO. Any
further "unmasking" would only add to, not supplant, my work along
these lines. There are people in her circle of acquaintance whom in
some ways fit descriptions given of Mahatmas, and no perfect fits in
sight, the composite theory pretty much defeats the all-fiction
theory. The either a real-Morya-as described or a no-Masters-just-
fantasy interpretation of the HPB/Master has questions as to the
composite argument. One can indeed establish that HPB knew Rajput
rulers, and that she knew some whom she traveled across India to
visit in the company of chelas. One can establish that she knew Sikh
noblemen from Amritsar and reformers from Lahore, a Copt in Cairo,
and so on." '
In fact, Paul Johnson's "composite theory" about the Masters is a
complicated hodge-podge and an ever evolving convoluted series of
speculations that ignores any evidence that might contradict the said
theory. But as pointed out by David Pratt in his excellent critique
of some of Johnson's speculations:
"Numerous details about M and KH and events in their lives are
reported in theosophical literature that could not have involved or
been based on Ranbir Singh or Thakar Singh. But Johnson does not
regard such information as counter-evidence; indeed, he believes it
is "naive" to do so. Instead, he either says that some other
candidate for M or KH may have been involved in such cases, or he
dismisses such details as irrelevant, fictitious, or deliberate
disinformation. His basic position is therefore unfalsifiable and
must be classed as a dogma rather than a testable hypothesis."
For example, what kind of evidence would falsify Johnson's
hypothesis? Can Johnson or any of his supporters specify the type of
evidence and facts that would show that Johnson's theory is NOT
viable, is NOT true?
Furthermore, many of Johnson's arguments and counter arguments are
basically illogical and make no sense whatsoever. I have shown this
in two essays (Parts I and II) titled
"Methinks Johnson Has 'Shot' Himself in the 'Foot':
Daniel H. Caldwell Replies to Some of K. Paul Johnson's Rebuttal
Remarks" published at:
Several historical scholars have complimented me on what I have done
in these two essays.
Unfortunately, Brigitte M. does not allow readers on her site to know
about these critques by David Pratt and me.
Daniel H. Caldwell
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application