Theos-Talk Archives (January 2007 Message tt00066)

In January of 1993, Paul Johnson first wrote to me asking me for 
certain input on his first self-published book about Madame Blavatsky 
and the Mahatmas.  He had seen the short annotation I had written 
about his book in my own book OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY.

My annotation about his book reads:

"Highly speculative with numerous unwarranted conclusions not 
supported by evidence; poor research methodology; interesting reading 
but only creates another 'myth' concerning the Masters."

I took the time and effort to reply and write to Mr. Johnson an 18 
page letter and added appendices of relevant material concerning his 
thesis on the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi.  In this letter of mine I 
gave SPECIFIC EXAMPLES to illustrate what I had written in the above 
annotation.
 
Yet after receiving just this one letter/critique from
me and not knowing anything about me other than that I had written 
THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY, Paul Johnson wrote back in a 
letter dated April 14, 1993 and questioned my motives and sincerity.

In my reply to that 1993 letter of his, I wrote the following:

"...it is not my intention to be adversarial with you. No doubt, you
are a sincere individual who has devoted alot of hard work and money
to your research. I can and do appreciate that. But if you want my
honest opinion, then I must give it to you."

"Also in your letter to me of April 14th, you seem to think I have
not been fair and objective in my criticism of your book; you also
question my motivations. On this score all I will say is that I have
given my criticisms of your thesis and you should be able to assess
the validity of my criticisms, regardless of my own motivations."

Yet even AT THE VERY BEGINNING of our correspondence in 1993 it 
appears that Paul Johnson wanted to assign to me some kind 
of "negative" motivation although Paul Johnson was then and has been 
incensed since then by theosophists who have ascribed to him various 
negative motives for writing his books on Madame Blavatsky and the 
Mahatmas.

At the time and to this very day, I could care less what his own 
motivations were for writing his books on HPB and the Masters.  I 
simply critiqued his statements, etc. that he had made about the 
Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi.  I was hoping that he would stick to 
the historical subject matter about HPB and the Masters and yet he 
preferred to direct attention to what he supposed and imagined were 
my motivations, etc. etc.

In other words, he went "ad hominem".....

Daniel
http://hpb.cc