[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Brigitte on "The Masters , Daniel Caldwell's question."

Feb 10, 2002 08:42 AM
by danielhcaldwell

Dear Brigitte,

Thanks for your posting at:

In your posting, you make a number of misleading statements. 

For example, you write:

"Unfortunately Daniel Caldwell is constantly doing his extreme best 
to cover up the content of this book by in the course of nign years 
extensively attacking only 5% of the content of the above book, 
leaving 95% totally unknown to the unwary reader of Theosophical 
internet information sources...."

"But the book is . . . much more then the 5% Daniel attacked in that 
book, and is doing also on this list ,as is exemplified by a 
compairance chart between apparently K.Paul Johnson, and others." 

Brigitte, over the years on these Theosophical discussion forums I 
have been ENCOURAGING interested students to buy and read Paul 
Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED. In conversations with Theosophists, 
I have also done the same. And in my critique on the WWW [see: ], I have 
also encouraged students and readers to obtain Johnson's book. I 
wrote in my critique:

". . . K. Paul Johnson has devoted a great deal of time and effort in 
researching various portions of H.P. Blavatsky's life and the 
historical identities of her Masters. Johnson's books should be
read by every Theosophical and occult student who is interested in 
learning more about Madame Blavatsky's life and the true nature
of Blavatsky's Mahatmas. Johnson's books are also a gold mine
of biographical information on various people whom Madame Blavatsky 
knew. His three titles have been quite controversial in Theosophical 
circles but that's good if the controversy prods Theosophists to 
reexamine their beliefs and assumptions." 

"Unfortunately, Johnson's books are marred by numerous serious 
mistakes and inaccuracies. . . . " Quoted from: "Conclusion" at

Brigitte, I totally support your present suggestion that readers on 
this forum should buy Johnson's book and read it from cover to cover.

You write of my "attack" on the book or on 5% of the book. Yes I 
have certainly questioned and criticized various statements that Paul 
Johnson has made in his book about the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. 
Is something wrong with questioning an author's statements and asking 
relevant questions? I have also given illustrations of erroneous 
statements in Johnson's book. I have also pointed out various 
relevant evidence that Johnson omits from his narratives about these 
two Masters. You may call all of this an "attack" if you want to.

Yes, Brigitte, it may be true as you say that I have only dealt with 
5% of the contents of THE MASTERS REVEALED. 

But my only intent from the beginning was to deal with what Johnson 
writes about the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. There is chapter 
after chapter in THE MASTERS REVEALED which have nothing directly to 
do with THAT subject matter. Why comment on the chapter about Lydia 
Pashkov or Marie, Countess of Caithness or Sir Richard Burton or 
James Peebles or Charles Sotheran or ....? The list of names could 
be extended. These chapters in THE MASTERS REVEALED certainly 
contain interesting material but they have nothing that is relevant 
to Johnson's comments and speculations on KH and M. I focused on 
those chapters that dealt specifically with these two Masters.

Why did I focus on what Johnson wrote about KH and M.? There are 
several reasons and I give some of them below.

(1) This was the area where I already had an interest and some 
expertise. See the following pages from my unpublished OLCOTT 
PORTFOLIO which I worked on in the late 1980s before I knew Paul 
Johnson even existed:

***Title Page of
The Olcott Portfolio:
A Critical Study of Henry S. Olcott's Testimony
to the Existence of the Theosophical Mahatmas

***Table of Contents

*** Purpose of the Portfolio

(2) Paul Johnson's 1993 GNOSIS article showcased Johnson's comments 
on the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi and the article even had 
reproductions of their portraits.

(3) Dr. Joscelyn Godwin in his Foreword to "The Masters Revealed" 
higlighted these two masters with the following words:

"The principal Masters in question were Koot Hoomi and Morya, 
supposedly residents of Shigatse in Tibet...." (p. xv) 

"The theme of this book is that HPB's Masters were not the Himalayan 
sages whom she invented to distract her co-workers...." (p. xviii) 

"Mr. Johnson's suggestion---and he makes it clear that it is no more 
than that---is that the Mahatmas Morya and Koot Hoomi are fictitious 
Tibetan personae that conceal well-documented historical figures: 
Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh." (p. xviii) 

(4) Johnson in his own Introduction to "The Masters Revealed" 
highlights the two Masters:

"Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, founding president of the Amritsar Singh 
Sabha, corresponds in intriguing ways to clues about Koot Hoomi's 
identity in the writings of Olcott and HPB.... 

"Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Kashmir has many correspondences to Morya 
as described by HPB.... 

"Although much of HPB's portrayal of Morya and Koot Hoomi was 
designed to mislead in order to protect their privacy, enough 
accurate information was included to make a persuasive case for their 
identities as these historical figures...." (pp. 5-6.) 

Johnson's mention of "a persuasive case" certainly got my attention.

(5)Most Theosophists would be especially interested in what Johnson 
said about these two Masters.

For the above reasons, I focused my attention on those chapters in 
THE MASTERS REVEALED which dealt with these two Masters.

Brigitte, your comments about the "comparison chart" [see: ]
I will deal with in my next post.

Daniel H. Caldwell

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application