Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00489)

K. Paul Johnson's House of Cards?: 
Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis 
on the Theosophical Masters Morya & Koot Hoomi

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. Furthermore, I am convinced that A. P. 
Sinnett's assessment of Richard Hodgson's "method" of handling the 
evidence about H.P.B. and the Masters also applies to Johnson's 
own "modus operandi" in researching the same subject:

". . .he merely staggers about among the facts, ignoring one [fact] 
while he is framing a hypothesis [A], incompatible with it, to 
explain another [fact], and then attempting to get over the first 
fact by suggesting alternative hypothesis [B] incompatible with the 
second [fact]. The multiplication of theories on this principle ad 
nauseam is not legitimate argument. . . ." (A.P. Sinnett, The "Occult 
World Phenomena" And The Society For Psychical Research, 1886, pp. 32-
33.) 

All in all, Johnson's "identifications" of the two Masters don't 
withstand a critical analysis of the sum total of evidence and 
testimony concerning the adepts involved. I believe that anyone who 
carefully studies the evidence and seriously thinks thorough the 
issues involved will reasonably conclude that Johnson's so-
called "persuasive case" about the Masters M. and K.H. is nothing but 
a "house of cards." Even as "suggestions", Johnson's conjectures on 
these two Masters are highly implausible and dubious when carefully 
scrutinized in light of all the known facts.

For a detailed critique of some of Johnson's claims, see:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnson.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc