Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00514)

Paul Johnson writes in part:

=============================================
It is noteworthy that no serious criticisms 
have emerged in the decade since TMR came 
out about my primary effort; it has either
been praised as successful or ignored. No 
*other* historical mentors or sponsors I 
failed to notice have emerged in the last 
ten years with a single exception; I should 
have included the Maharaja of Varanasi among 
HPB's Indian royalty sponsors. All the 
criticisms have been about objective 3, and 
mainly from the POV of people who
assume the right to be furiously angry 
that anyone would not take everything HPB 
said or wrote about the Masters as literally true.
============================================

One hardly knows where to start in pointing
out the misstatements in this quotation by Johnson.

Algeo, Pratt and Caldwell did NOT ignore
Johnson's unfounded speculations. In fact,
all three authors pointed out chapter and
verse where Johnson was simply wrong in
case after case. See for example:

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

• "K. Paul Johnson's House of Cards?: A Critical Examination of
Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi"
by Daniel H. Caldwell
http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnson.htm

• "A Closer Look at Some of K. Paul Johnson's Arguments
Concerning H.S. Olcott's Testimony about the Masters" by Daniel H.
Caldwell
http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonparanormal3.htm

• "I view M. as a composite character...." by Daniel H. Caldwell
http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonmcomposite.htm

• John Algeo's review of Johnson's book can be found in
"Theosophical
History," Volume V, July, 1995, pp. 232-247. Available online for
sale in pdf format. See http://www.theohistory.org/pdf-s.html

As to Johnson's assertion about those "furiously angry" people,
this is apparently an attempt by Johnson to sidetrack the serious 
criticism of many of Johnson's speculations by appealing to an ad 
hominem argument meant to obscure the serious discussion of many of 
Johnson's statements.

Interested readers should instead read Johnson's primary statements
and the criticisms specifically directed against those statements.

For example, see my own detailed reasoned critique of some of 
Johnson's misleading statements in the following essay:

• "A Closer Look at Some of K. Paul Johnson's Arguments
Concerning H.S. Olcott's Testimony about the Masters" by Daniel H.
Caldwell
http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonparanormal3.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc