Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00020)

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:
http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonparanormal.htm

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
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc