Caldwell, Daniel H - K Paul Johnson's House of Card

7/28/2019 Caldwell, Daniel H - K Paul Johnson's House of Card

1/52

K. Paul Johnson's House of Cards?A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on

the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi

y !aniel H. Cald"ell

#$ %as There#

#All &no"lede of the past "hich is not (ust suppositionderi)es ultimately from people "ho can say *$ "as there+. . . .#

John Carey. Eyewitness to History.Har)ard ,ni)ersity Press-/01.

Contents

2 Part $3 Johnson's Thesis in 4iht of Colonel H.5. 6lcott'sTestimony aout the Masters2 Part $$3 %ill The 7eal Master Morya Please Ta&e His Turan6ff2 Part $$$3 6ther Testimonies of Encounters "ith the MasterMorya2 Part $83 Mohini Chatter(i+s Alleed #!eception#2 Part 83 *5ai Kashmere+ 9 *5ai Morya+ 9 7anir 5inh ofKashmir???2 Part 8$3 %ho's Pullin %hose 4e? 6r Ho" Can :ou Tell %hen

$t $s #!isinformation# or ;ot?2 Conclusion


2/52

Part I

Johnson's Thesis in Light of Colonel H.S. Olcott's

Testimony about the Masters

In this paper I will give a critique of K. Paul Johnson's thesis relating to H.P. Blavatskys

Masters Morya an Koot Hoo!i. Johnson has presente his views on the su"#ect in three

"ooks$In Search Of The Masters %privately pu"lishe& (()*+The Masters Revealed %,tate-niversity of ew /ork Press& ((0*+ anInitiates Of Theosophical Masters%,tate

-niversity of ew /ork Press& ((1*. Johnson has also su!!ari2e his thesis on these two

Masters in an article title 3I!aginary Mahat!as3 an pu"lishe in the ,u!!er& ((4 issueof Gnosis Magazine.

5o set the stage& I quote three e6tracts fro! 7r. Joscelyn 8owin's 9orewor to The

Masters Revealed. 5hese e6tracts outline succinctly Johnsons argu!ent$

35he principal Masters in question were Koot Hoo!i an Morya& supposely

resients of ,higatse in 5i"et....3 %p. 6v*

35he the!e of this "ook is that HPB's Masters were not the Hi!alayan sages who!

she invente to istract her co:workers....3 %p. 6viii*

3Mr. Johnson's suggestion:::an he !akes it clear that it is no !ore than that:::is

that the Mahat!as Morya an Koot Hoo!i are fictitious 5i"etan personae thatconceal well:ocu!ente historical figures$ ;an"ir ,ingh an 5hakar ,ingh.3 %p.

6viii*

Johnson in his own Introuction to The Masters Revealed su!!ari2es this hypothesis as

follows$

35hakar ,ingh ,anhanwalia& founing presient of the

!islea in orer to protect their privacy& enough accurate infor!ation was inclue

to !ake a persuasive case for their ientities as these historical figures....3 %pp. 1:>.*


3/52

* in which he writes$

3If I can prove to the satisfaction of man scholars that Mme. !lavatsk fictionalized herMasters" and that the personae of Mora and #oot $oomi are covers for other people& that

oes not etract one iota fro! the truth of the spiritual principles enunciate "y her or the

allege Masters. But it oes pull the rug out fro! uner


4/52

physicist& the late 7r. ;ichar 9eyn!an& once !ae so!e i!portant co!!ents which I

"elieve are relevant an applica"le to Johnsons presentation of his thesis on the Masters$

37etails that coul throw ou"t on your interpretation !ust "e given& if you know the!./ou !ust o the "est you can:::if you know anything at all wrong& or possi"ly wrong:::to

e6plain it.If ou make a theor" for e'ample" and advertise it" or put it out" then ou mustalso put do(n all the facts that disagree (ith it" as (ell as those that agree (ith it. . . .3Italics ae.

-nfortunately& Johnson i notfollow 9eyn!ans avice when writing his three "ooks on

the 5heosophical Masters. Hence& a reaer:::unacquainte an uninfor!e a"out early

5heosophical history:::will not"e in a goo position to #uge the valiity of Johnsonshypotheses.

Eet !e e6plain. ;ichar Hogsons 1 ,ociety for Psychical ;esearch ;eport %charging

HPB with frau an eclaring that her Masters were fictional* !ay appear convincing if

one only looks at what Hogson presents in the pages of his ;eport. But if you startsearching for !ore evience outsidethis ;eport& you !ay "egin to ou"t the sounness of

Hogsons charges. 9or e6a!ple& in ealing with the testi!ony pertaining to the e6istence

of HPBs Masters& Hogson o!its or ownplays Colonel Henry ,. =lcotts testi!ony a"outthese Masters. -nless one consults other sources& the reaer of Hogsons ;eport woul

never know the e6tent of =lcotts closeencounterswith the Masters Morya an Koot

Hoo!i. Hogson violates the 9eyn!an rule. It is !y opinion that Hogson is not ealing

with this issue of the Masters in a fair an i!partial !anner. Hogsons ;eport oes notprovie its reaers with vital etails an infor!ation concerning HPB an the Masters. In

other wors& ;ichar Hogson o!its or ownplays evience that !ight show that his

hypotheses a"out H.P.B. an the Masters have serious eficiencies.I %elieve this samecriticism can %e made of )ohnson*s presentation of his thesis on the Theosophical Masters.

Eet !e illustrate !y criticis! of Johnsons thesis with the following e6a!ple. Colonel

=lcott gives a firsthan escription of an encounter with the Master Morya. He states that

this Master ca!e on horse"ack to the Bo!"ay 5heosophical ,ociety heaquarters$

3GI ha visit in "oy of the ,ahi" GMorya GHe sent Ba"ula to !y roo! to call !e to

H.P.B.'s "ungalow& an there we ha a !ost i!portant private interview....3 %?6tract fro!

=lcott's hanwritten iary for 5uesay& July 1& @(.*

In a letter to


5/52

fro! a letter written "y Colonel =lcott to


6/52

%?6tracts fro! the interview =lcott ha with !e!"ers of the Eonon ,.P.;. Co!!ittee.

uote fro!-irst Report Of The ommittee Of The Societ -or /schical Research"

Appointed To Investigate The Evidence -or Marvellous /henomena Offered ! ertainMem%ers Of The Theosophical Societ& 0& pp. 01:0.*

In the a"ove accounts& =lcott says that the Master Morya ca!e 3in the flesh3 an 3onhorse"ack.3 9urther!ore& Morya's voice 3ha "een hear "y those in the other "ungalow.3How oes K. Paul Johnson e6plain this Bo!"ay incient of July& @( Is this 3Brother3

so!ehow to "e ientifie with ;an"ir ,ingh& the Mahara#a of Kash!ir =r is this 3Brother3

the Morya 3persona3 =r is this 3Brother3 so!eone else

5o "egin with& Johnson ignores this incient in his three "ooks. ;eaers of Johnson's "ooksare not given the etails on this ansimilar!eetings =lcott ha with this Master. In

corresponence& Johnson has tol !e that he oes not"elieve that this 3Master3 visiting

5.,. Heaquarters was ;an"ir ,ingh& who woul have ha to travel a consiera"le istancefro! Kash!ir to visit HPB an =lcott in Bo!"ay. Then (ho (as this Master0Johnson has

notatte!pte to e6plain =lcott's accounts of this event.


7/52

various Inian newspapers& etc. ,o a perceptive reaer !ight ask$ Is so!ething wrong here

Is Johnson's hypothesis %a"out ;an"ir ,inghLMorya* untrue =r is so!ething wrong withColonel =lcott's testi!ony

Johnson in his e:!ail co!!ents %=ct. >& ((1* also says that this July @( account of

Morya co!ing to see =lcott is 3of little use in proviing a historical ientification.3 Hegoes on to point out$

If you want to use it as weight against another ientification Glike Johnson's own ;an"ir,ingh ientification....fine. But it lacks !uch weight when there is no confir!ation of

the account....3

5o "egin with& the na!e 3Morya3 is a pseuony! or an initiate na!e an is notthe 3"irth

na!e3 of this particular Master. Many years ago& I knew a !an whose na!e was ,ar!a+"ut this was not his "irth na!e. ,ar!a was his initiation na!e which he receive when he

"eca!e a ,ufi. Most of his friens only knew hi! as ,ar!a+ I can't even re!e!"er his

real na!e. ,o when Johnson writes that this July @( encounter is 3of little use inproviing a historical ientification3 of Morya& I woul agree that =lcotts account oes not

tell us the "irth na!e of Morya. But unless Johnson has so!e other goo reason for

iscounting this narrative"Olcott1s testimon places the phsical man kno(n % his2pseudonm2 Mora at ,34 Girgaum !ack Road" !om%a on )ul ,5" ,467.


8/52

3=lcott's only trip to ;an"ir's kingo! was his 4 #ourney to Ja!!u& "ut accoring to

his own account of his visit there& he !et no Mahat!a& spening all his ti!e in theco!pany of the !ahara#a.3

It woul see! that Johnson wants to infer that HPB's own wors so!ehow support his

hypothesis of 3the ientification of ;an"ir ,ingh as the prototype for Morya.3 But whatJohnson oes notco!!ent on are the other wors of HPB$ 3one GMaster in Bo!"ay3.8ho (asthisMaster Johnson is silent on this question. But fro! HPB's own letter of >

an =lcott's accounts of @(& an 0& it is o"vious %at least to !e* that the Master

in Bo!"ay was Morya. HPB's 3confir!ation3 of =lcott's account is pro"a"ly unsatisfactory

for Johnson& "ut note well that Johnson is not hesitant to quote HPB when her wors !ightsupport hisspeculation.

Johnson again writes to !e in his =ct. >& ((1 e:!ail$

3...!y proceure Guse in his "ooks was to co!" through the 5heosophical

literature looking for clues that are specific enough to point to specificprototypes or ientifications for the Masters. Passages such as the one you

cite G=lcott's @( account are not useful in that way. I have sai that

passages such as the one you cite coul "e use as isproof of & ((1*& Johnson points the finger at !e$

3/ou...assu!e the accuracy of accounts Gof !eetings with the Masters "y

the 9ouners G=lcott an H.P.B. even when there is no evience to confir!the!. This (ill onl fl (ith a Theosophical audience.3 Italics ae.

5he intene !eaning of the clause 3even when there is no evience to confir! the!3 is

so!ewhat vague. 7oes Johnson !ean 3evience3 that is given "y non:theosophical

witnesses =r evience foun in non:theosophical& historical sources Dhat kin of3evience3 confir!ing the accuracy of the accounts "y the 9ouners woulflwith a non:

5heosophical auience Johnson appears to "e asserting that the @( account an si!ilar

ones are notconfir!e "y such evience.

But in his o(npu"lishe writings has K. Paul Johnson also assu!e the accuracy ofaccounts "y the 9ouners even when there is no evience to confir! the!

9urther!ore& has Johnson use only accounts of a Master where the historical ientification

of the Master has "een specific an ocu!ente Or has )ohnson 9uoted and used

accounts similar to the ,467 one:::where there is nothing that woul help us to ientify the


9/52

real na!e of the Master+ or where there are no inepenent recors or neutral witnesses

%other than =lcott& HPB or so!e other 5heosophical witness*:::to validate his o(n thesis

I will now e6a!ine in so!e etailfouraccounts given "y Henry =lcott of his !eetingswith the Masters an see how K. Paul Johnson uses these sa!e accounts "y =lcott to

support his own thesis.

%I* =EC=55', *$

3...I was reaing in !y roo! yesteray %,unay* when there ca!e a tap at

the oor:::I sai co!e in an there entere the Gyounger BroGther with

another ark skinne gentle!an of a"out fifty....De took cigars an chattefor a while....G5hen =lcott relates that a rain shower starte inthe roo!.

=lcott continues the account$ 5hey sat there an quietly s!oke their

cigars& while !ine "eca!e too wet to "urn....finally the younger of the two%who gave !e his na!e as =oton Eiatto* sai I neen't worry nothing woul

"e a!age....I aske Eiatto if he knew Maa! BGlavatsky....the eler

BroGther...Gsai that with her per!ission they woul call upon her. I ranownstairs:::rushe into Maa!s parlour:::an:::there sat these sa!e two

ientical !en s!oking with her an chatting....I sai nothing "ut rushe up

stairs again tore open !y oor an:::the !en were not there:::I ran own

again& they ha isappeare:::I . . . looke out the winow:::an saw the!turning the corner....3 %=lcotts account is given in full in Theosophical

$istor& Jan.& ((0.*

Co!!enting on =lcotts story& Johnson !akes the following highlsignificanta!ission$

35he na!es =oton Eiatto an Hilarion ,!eris have "een equallyi!possi"le to fin in "iographical an historical reference "ooks. Dhile "oth

!ay "e pseuony!s& there is little ou"t that two real aepts visite =lcott

in ew /ork.3 %p. >A*

Dhat are Johnson's conclusions a"out =lcotts testi!ony


10/52

%* Johnson accepts the accuracy an truthfulness of =lcott's account.

%A* Johnson "elieves that two realaepts visite =lcott in ew /ork City. ote the phrase$

3...there is little ou"t Gat least in Johnson's !in....3

%4* Johnson also a!its that the two na!es were not locate in any "iographical anhistorical reference "ooks+ "oth na!es 3!ay "e pseuony!s.3

%0* Johnson accepts the account at face valueeven though there is only =lcott's account of

this particular visit. %Johnson also cites HPBs testi!ony fro! her scrap"ook that Hilarionwas in ew /ork in May& @1.*

How oes this account "y =lcott in @1:@>significantliffer fro! the one given "y

=lcott of the Master Morya co!ing to Bo!"ay heaquarters in @( Dhen critici2ing

Johnsons thesis& I cite the @( account of Morya as evience that =lcott ha !et inBo!"ay a realaept whose pseuony! was 3Morya3. In reply& Johnson i not hesitate to

point out the following$

G 3G5he July @( account is...of little use in proviing a historical

ientification...If you want to use it as weight against anotherientification...fine. But it lacks !uch weight when there is no confir!ation

of the account.3

GA 3...I have sai that passages such as the one you cite Gthe July @(

account coul "e use as isproof of account "y =lcott even when there is no

other evience to confir! it. 5his will only fly with a 5heosophical auience3

5o re"ut Johnson's dismissiveattitue towar the evientiary significance of =lcott's

account of Morya visiting hi! in Bo!"ay& one can take Johnson's own su!!ari2ing

sentences to the chapter on 3=oton Eiatoo3 an rephrase the! as follows$ 35he na!eMorya has "een i!possi"le to fin in "iographical an historical reference "ooks of (th

century persons. Dhile it !ay "e a pseuony!& there is little ou"t that a real aept visite

=lcott in Bo!"ay on July 1& @(.3

8oing to the heart of Johnsons thesis& if we can reasona"ly conclue that the


11/52

speculation that Morya is a fictitious 5i"etan persona If Johnson regars it as

3i!plausi"le3 that ;an"ir ,ingh was actually in Bo!"ay on that July @( ay& then is itnot fair to suggest that Johnson's own hypothesis is #ust as ou"tful

.


12/52

accuracy of accounts "y the 9ouners even when there is no evience to confir! the!. 5his

will only fly with a 5heosophical auience.3

In an


13/52

%III* =EC=55',

eyes.... GOld ;iar :eaves& volu!e A& pp. A10:A11& (@0 printing.3

In his re!arks on this event& Johnson a!its that this Master was 3unna!e "y =lcott.39urther!ore& Johnson puts H.P. Blavatsky on the witness stan "y quoting fro! heraves

And )ungles Of $industan%p. A)(& (@1 eition* where she writes$

3=ur new frien was a native of

3It is apparent fro! Old ;iar :eavesan aves and )unglesthat the sa!echaracter is escri"e "y "oth as a ,ikh officiating at the 8olen 5e!ple& in

which he plays a supervisory role.3 %p. 1.*

7oes =lcott state that this unna!e Master was a ,ikh officiating at the 8olen 5e!ple

=lcott's own wors are$ 3...I was greete& to !y surprise an #oy& with a loving s!ile "y oneof the Masters& (ho for the moment (as figuring among the guardians....3 Italics ae.

7oes =lcott's wors signify that this Master was one of the guardians Johnson& at least&

wants to "elieve this$ 3It is apparent. . .3.

5hen Johnson !akes another assu!ption that =lcott's 3unna!e3 Master is35hakar ,ingh,anhanwalia& first presient of the ,ingh ,a"ha3 an 3a sirar fro!

writes$ 3,eeking in an aroun


14/52

5heosophical Mahat!a Koot Hoo!i %K.H.*.

Johnson is referring to a letter %ate =ct. A(& )* fro! Master K.H. to co!e for a few ays& "ut now fin that I !yself cannot enure for any lengthof ti!e the stifling !agnetis! even of !y own country!en. I have seen

so!e of our prou ol ,ikhs runk an staggering over the !ar"le pave!ent

of their sacre 5e!ple....I turn !y face ho!ewar to:!orrow.3 %?6tractfro! The Mahatma :etters& Eetter o. 1 in the new chronological eition+

o. 0 in the oler eitions*.

=ne can euce that Koot Hoo!i was at the 8olen 5e!ple on or a"out =ct. A(& ). But

in this sa!e letter& KH tells ,innett that he ha receive a !essage fro! ,innett on =ct.A@th 3a"out thirty !iles "eyon ;awalpini3 an 3ha an acknowleg!ent wire to you

fro! Jhelu!3 a few hours later. Dhere are these two towns locate in Inia

"egin with& the =cto"er A4r ate that Johnson gives for =lcott's encounter with a Master is

wrong. If one carefullreas =lcott's account& the ay of the !eeting is =cto"er A>th. 5hisate is confir!e "y =lcott's own hanwritten iary where the entry for =cto"er A>th

reas$

3...In the afternoon we went to the 8olen 5e!ple again N foun it as lovely

as "efore. ,aw so!e hunres of fakirs N gossains !ore or less ill:favore.< Brother there salute H.P.B. an !e N gave us each a rose.3

9urther!ore %accoring to Mahat!a Eetter o. 1* on =ct. A>& )& Koot Hoo!i was

hundreds of miles north of Amritsar& an the ne6t ay %=ct. A@th* he was near ;awalpini.

,u"sequently K.H. travele to


15/52

+o dou%t" )ohnson denies the veracit of (hat I have

5e!ple on =ct. A4 %actually =ct A>*& )

%* Johnson accepts the accuracy an truthfulness of =lcott's account. He also accepts

Blavatsky's account.

%A* Johnson "elieves that a physical Master was seen "y =lcott an Blavatsky at the 8olen

5e!ple on that =ct. ) ate.

%4* Johnson a!its that the Master is 3unna!e "y =lcott.3

%0* Johnson accepts the testi!onies at face value even though there are only the state!ents

"y =lcott an Blavatsky.

But for confir!ation of his thesis& Johnson oes notcite one historical ocu!ent that woul

verify that 5hakar ,ingh was the 3unna!e Master3+ he oes notgive one source thatwoul su"stantiate that 5hakar ,ingh was in & ). Instea Johnson

#ust piles one assu!ption on top of another+ a careless reaer !ight conclue that Johnson

has really proven so!ething.

;egaring the inclusion of this account in The Masters Revealed& Johnsons own criticis!irecte towar !e coul aptly "e paraphrase$ 3/ou& Paul Johnson& assu!e the accuracy

of this =ct. ) account "y the 9ouners even when there is no other evience to confir!

it. 5his will only fly with a 5heosophical auience.3

5he intereste reaer !ight co!pare what I have sai a"ove concerning this ) accountwith 7r.


16/52

3I was sleeping in !y tent& the night of the (th& when I rushe "ack towars

e6ternal consciousness on feeling a han lai on !e. 5he ca!p "eing on theopen plain& an "eyon the protection of the Eahore Police& !y first ani!al

instinct was to protect !yself fro! a possi"le religious fanatical assassin& so

I clutche the stranger "y the upper ar!s& an aske hi! in Hinustani who

he was an what he wante. It was all one in an instant& an I hel the !antight& as woul one who !ight "e attacke the ne6t !o!ent an have to

efen his life. But the ne6t !o!ent a kin& sweet voice sai$ 7o you not

know !e 7o you not re!e!"er !e It was the voice of the Master K.H. . ..I rela6e !y hol on his ar!s& #oine !y pal!s in reverential salutation&

an wante to #u!p out of "e to show hi! respect. But his han an voice

staye !e& an after a few sentences ha "een e6change& he took !y lefthan in his& gathere the fingers of his right into the pal!& an stoo quiet

"esie !y cot& fro! which I coul see his ivinely "enignant face "y the

light of the la!p that "urne on a packing:case at his "ack. Presently I felt

so!e soft su"stance for!ing in !y han& an the ne6t !inute the Masterlai his kin han on !y forehea& uttere a "lessing& an left !y half of the

large tent to visit Mr. D.5. Brown& who slept in the other half "ehin a

canvas screen that ivie the tent into two roo!s. Dhen I ha ti!e to payattention to !yself& I foun !yself holing in !y left han a fole paper

enwrappe in a silken cloth. 5o go to the la!p& open an rea it& was

naturally !y first i!pulse. I foun it to "e a letter of private counsel. . . =nhearing an e6cla!ation fro!FGBrowns sie of the screen& I went in there

an he showe !e a silk:wrappe letter of like appearance to !ine though

of ifferent contents& which he sai ha "een given hi! !uch as !ine ha"een to !e& an which we rea together. . . .5he ne6t evening. . .we two an

7a!oar sat in !y tent& at ) oclock& waiting for an e6pecte visit fro!

Master K.H. . . .De sat on chairs at the "ack of the tent so as not to "e

o"serve fro! the ca!p$ the !oon was in its last quarter an ha not risen.


17/52

=n p. 11 ofIn Search Of The Masters& =lcotts account of !eeting the Mahat!a K.H. is

given. Johnson then assures us on p. A0A that$ 3K.H. i indeedvisit =lcott& 7a!oar anBrown on the ege of Eahore.3 Italics ae. Here we see that Johnson is quite reay to

"elieve that =lcott's testi!ony can "e taken at face value. Johnson is saying& in effect$ /es&

Henry =lcott actually i !eet 3Koot Hoo!i.3 =f course& it was 5hakar ,ingh.

In Johnson's secon "ook The Masters Revealed& several pages %pp. 1@:>)* are againevote to escri"ing K.H.'s two visits to Eahore in ove!"er& 4. 5hen in his latest

"ookInitiates Of Theosophical Masters& Johnson recounts D.5. Brown's an 7a!oar

Mavalankars !eetings with the Master K.H. at Eahore an Ja!!u %see pp. 41:0*.

Dillia! 5. Brown gives the following narrative of his !eetings with the Master K.H.$

3...Eahore has a special interest& "ecause there we saw& in his own physical"oy& Mahat!a Koot Hoo!i hi!self. =n the afternoon of the (th

ove!"er G4& I saw the Master in "roa aylight& an recogni2e hi!&

an on the !orning of the A)th he ca!e to !y tent....=n the evening of theAst& after the lecture was over& Colonel =lcott& 7a!oar an I were sitting

outsie theshamiana& %pavilion or panal*& when we were visite "y 7#ual

Khool %the Master's hea Chela& an now an Initiate*& who infor!e us thatthe Master was a"out to co!e. 5he Master GKH then ca!e near to us& gave

instructions to 7a!oar& an walke away. =n leaving Eahore the ne6t place

visite was Ja!!u& the winter resience of His Highness the Mahara#ah of

Cash!ere....


18/52

was first pu"lishe in 0. I have a photocopy of an original copy which I o"taine so!e

twenty years ago. Browns pa!phlet has also "een reprinte at least three ti!es %eforethe(( 3pu"lication3 to which Johnson !akes reference. Browns e6periences were not

written in a report for the ,.P.;+ the pa!phlet was 3printe uner the authority of the

Eonon Eoge of the 5heosophical ,ociety.3 Dithout o"taining a copy of the original&

Johnson coul have consulte the following sources for correct infor!ation on the Brownpa!phlet$

%* 7r. Ja!es ,antucci reprinte Browns pa!phlet in the July:=cto"er& (( issue of

Theosophical $istor. Johnson quotes fro! Browns pa!phlet using as his source this ((

reprint. But in his introuctory re!arks on the Brown pa!phlet& 7r. ,antucci states$

3D.5. Browns Some E'periences in India& first pu"lishe in 0& co!es "y

way of the archives of the ,ociety of Psychical ;esearch. =ur gratitue is

e6tene to the ,.P.;. for allowing the pa!phlet to appear in this issue. . ..5he pa!phlet. . .is very rare.3 %p. 1*

%A* ,ylvia Cranston in her ((4 "iography of H.P.B. gives the following "i"liographic

citation$ 3Brown& D.5.& Some E'periences In India& Eonon& ?nglan& Printe uner the

authority of the Eonon Eoge of the 5.,.& 0.3 5he Cranston "ook is liste in the"i"liography to JohnsonsInitiates Of Theosophical Masters.

%4* In !y "ook The Occult 8orld Of Madame !lavatsk%which is liste in Johnsons

"i"liography*& I quote fro! Browns pa!phlet an !y ennote %p. 4)* reas$ 3Dillia! 5.

Brown& Some E'periences In India& Eonon& 5he Eonon Eoge of the 5heosophical,ociety& 0. . . .3

%0* In the "ook;amodar And The /ioneers Of The Theosophical Movementco!pile an

eite "y ,ven ?ek& one can fin the sa!e 0 pu"lication infor!ation a"out Browns

pa!phlet on p. 1@) with the aitional fact that 3the te6t was reprinte in The anadianTheosophist& Ool. QQOIII& June& ([email protected] 5he ?ek "ook is liste in the "i"liography to

JohnsonsInitiates Of Theosophical Masters.

%1* Most of Browns pa!phlet was reprinte in K.9. OaniasMadame $./. !lavatsk" $er

Occult /henomena And The Societ -or /schical Research& (1& pp. >>:@0.

%>* ?6tracts fro! Browns pa!phlet were reprinte as


19/52

3GBrowns ;eport. . .!akes clai!s a"out his encounters with Koot Hoo!i

that are so specific as to have possi%l raised concerns in the minds of

Olcott and $/!. . . .Browns testi!ony. . . re!aine unpu"lisheforreasons unkno(n. =ne !ight speculate that its etails a"out the Masters

were consiere too indiscreet for pu%lic consumption& especially in the

wake of the Coulo!" scanal.3 Italics ae.

3=ne !ight speculate3 Inee& Johnson see!s quite eager to speculate on the "asis of

what turns out to "e his own "luner.

< "rief e6tract fro! the testi!ony of 7a!oar K. Mavalankar is given "elow$

3...Gin Eahore I was visite "y hi! GMahat!a KH in "oy& for three nights

consecutively for a"out three hours every ti!e....Gin Ja!!u I ha the goofortune of "eing sent for& an per!itte to visit a ,acreAshramwhere I

re!aine for a few ays in the "lesse co!pany of several of the !uch

ou"te M


20/52

Johnson's acceptance of these accounts contraicts the three points he "rought up in reply

to one of !y criticis!s. Dhat non:theosophical auienceLscholar woul accept thetesti!ony of =lcott an two other 5heosophists 3when there is no other GinepenentLnon:

theosophical evience to confir!3 these accounts

)*& Johnson writes a"out the ,ikh ,irars that provie

traveling acco!!oations for =lcott& 7a!oar an Brown at Eahore. Johnson quotes a

passage fro! the January& 0 supple!ent to The Theosophistwhich reas$

3His Highness ;a#a Har"ans ,ingh and other SirdarsGJohnsons e!phasissent their conveyances to "ring the party to their quarters....3

Johnson then co!!ents on this Theosophiste6tract$

3Most intriguing in all this are the references to other ,irars....5he lack ofany !ention of 5hakar ,ingh's na!e see!s inevita"le if he was inee the

Master K.H.3

In his previously !entione "ook review& 7r.


21/52

5.,. Heaquarters to visit with =lcott an H.P.B. 5o "riefly review& Johnson says that he

ignores %or evaes* =lcotts @( account for the following reasons$

G 3G5he July @( account is...of little use in proviing a historicalientification...If you want to use it as weight against another

ientification...fine. But it lacks !uch weight when there is no confir!ationof the account.3

GA 3...I have sai that passages such as the one you cite Gthe July @(account coul "e use as isproof of


22/52

It is a historical fact that more than t,enty fie %eo%le testifie& to haing

seen the Mahatmas &uring H.P.).'s lifetime. hether these testimonies

are true or not$ of course$ is another >uestion an& issue. )ut ho, &oes ?.

Paul Johnson in his three boo"s han&le these testimonies@ I hae alrea&y

sho,n in Part I that Johnson uses ,hat can be calle& a #&oublestan&ar in assessing some of these accounts. In re%ly to my criticism

that Johnson ignore& certain testimonies of Olcott's encounters ,ith the

Master Morya$ Johnson outline& ,hat constitutes in reality a higher

stan&ar& for assessing ei&ence an& %ointe& out that I ,as not follo,ing

it. Aet ,ithin his o,n %reiously %ublishe& ,ritings$ Johnson uses a lower

stan&ar& of assessment an& acce%ts #at face alue# at least four accounts

by Olcott.It is my ontention that by !ohnson"s own #se of this lower

standard, the other ao#nts by Olott of meeting the Master Morya in

Bombay and elsewhere sho#ld also be aepted at fae val#e.

(s also relate& in Part I$ Johnson &eotes %%. B3+D of The MastersRevealed to Henry S. Olcott's 247B+7 meeting ,ith Ooton Liatto an&

another (&e%t. In summariing this account$ Johnson ,rites that #. . .

there is little &oubt that t,o real a&e%ts isite& Olcott in -e, Aor".# %.

D< I shoul& tell the rea&er that I also agree ,ith Johnson's estimation of

Olcott's testimony. Therefore$ in light of Johnson's own riteria and

standardsas illustrate& in this Ooton Liatto inci&ent an& the three other

accounts &iscusse& earlier in this %a%er$ I submit for consi&eration the

follo,ing a&&itional inci&ents inoling the Master Morya.

In a Se%t. ;5$ 2442 letter a&&resse& to (.O. Hume$ Olcott relates ,hat

ha& Eust ha%%ene& three &ays before:

#...on the night of that &ay FSe%t. D7th$ 2442G I ,as

a,a"ene& from slee% by my $hohanor 0uru$ the )rother

FMoryaG ,hose imme&iate %u%il I am


23/52

#OFlcottG's memo...,as ,ritten on the D7th Fof Se%t.$

2442G....?.H. thought of as"ing me to go an& tell OFlcottG to

&o so....(t the same time as I &eliere& my message to

OFlcottG$ I satisfie& his curiosity as to your FSinnett's Simla

Theoso%hicalG Society an& tol& FOlcottG ,hat I thought ofit. OFlcottG as"e& my %ermission to sen& to you these notes

,hich I accor&e&....# Letter -o. D3 in the chronological

e&ition= also Letter D3 in the Dn& an& ;r& e&itions.


24/52

&soteri Theosophy, 'o( )$ 244D$ %%. 7B+7.uote& hel%s to su%%ort the

soun&ness of *r. (lgeo's obseration that:

#The %arallels bet,een !anbir Singh an& Morya are

e*eedinglyten#o#s....There is no ei&ence that !anbir ,as

in fact the mo&el for Morya's irtues or anythingelsein


25/52

connection ,ith him.# Italics a&&e&.

In the %rece&ing %ages$ I hae cite& Colonel Olcotts arious meetings

,ith Morya. Let us no, turn our attention to Olcotts narratie of

meeting MaharaEa !anbir Singh at Jammu in late -oember 244;.Olcott gies this account in the thir& olume of his Old -iary Leaves

beginning in a cha%ter title& #!ece%tion by the MaharaEah of ?ashmir#:

#I bro"e u% cam% the ne8t &ay+++-oember D2 F244;G+++an&

left Lahore for Jammu$ the lo,er ca%ital of H.H. the. .

.MaharaEah of ?ashmir F!anbir SinghG$ ,hose initation

to isit him I ha& acce%te&. . . . e reache&. . .Jammu. .

.an& ,ere brought on t,o of the royal ele%hants$ a &istance

of t,o miles$ to the huge bungalo, that the MaharaEah

"ee%s for his more im%ortant guests. . . . The ne8t morning$

at 25+;5$ the. . .Minister. . .brought me ,or& that HisHighness begge& the honour of my %resence at the Palace. .

. . The MaharaEah F!anbir SinghG came soon an& receie&

me ,ith an air of "in&ness an& stately courtesy that

sho,e& beyon& &oubt that I ,as ,elcome. In com%liment

to him I ,ore the ,oollen &ress of the better class in the

PunEab. . . . His first e8%ression to Pan&it 0o%inath$ my

inter%reter$ ,as one of %leasure to see me in his national

costume. ( car%et an& bac"+bolster ha& been s%rea& for

him on a slightly raise& %latform$ before ,hich ,e ,ere to

sit on the car%ete& floor: but he &ragge& the bolster from

there$ %lace& it on the floor$ motione& me to sit besi&e him$

calle& me his el&er brother$ an& %rocee&e& ,ith the

conersation$ ,hich he o%ene& ,ith the usual e8change of

com%liments an& goo& ,ishes. He ,as a man of noble

%resence$ ,ith an intellectual face an& the s%len&i& eyes of

the Hin&u$ ,hich by turns can be full of %athos$ blae ,ith

anger$ or %enetrating ,ith intelligent interest. His

%ersonality fitte& the "ingly office %erfectly . . . . I foun&

him to be a thoughtful 1e&antin$ ,ell ac>uainte& ,ith

%hiloso%hical systems. He fully beliee& in the e8istence of

liing Mahatmas$ an& truste& in them to &o for In&ia all

that her "arma ma&e %ossible$ but no more. He gently

broache& the subEect of his o,n ill+health$ sai& he "ne, of

my cures an& of the recent %rohibition to continue the

%ractice$ but as"e& if I ,oul& not at least reliee the acute

%ain he ,as then suffering from. I consente&$ of course$

an& on his remoing his turban$ &i& ,hat I coul& for him

,ith mesmeric healing %asses. . . . hen the au&ience

close& he begge& me to isit him t,ice a &ay &uring my

stay$ that ,e might tal" of the high religious themes ,hich


26/52

e>ually intereste& us. . . . I ,ent t,ice to the Palace the ne8t

&ay$ an& resume& the 1e&antic &iscussions an& een the

mesmeric %asses. His *e,an Prime Minister< ,as %resent

,ith other officials$ inclu&ing the Chief Justice$ an& after

the free Kastern fashion$ &i%%e& into the conersation fromtime to time. . . In the afternoon the MaharaEah %resi&e& at

games an& a series of animal combats$ an& too" me to his

%ailion an& %lace& me at his si&e. . . . I ,ent t,ice to the

Palace. . .FanotherG &ay an& foun& myself increasingly

,elcome to His Highness. He sho,e& me eery courtesy$

&iscusse& the 1e&anta %hiloso%hy ,ith ei&ently &ee%

interest$ an& gae me a %ressing initation to accom%any

him the ne8t time he shoul& go to his ?ashmirian ca%ital$

Srinagar. . . .(t the MaharaEahs re>uest I ha& been giing

him some mesmeric %asses eery &ay$ ,hich seeme& to &o

him goo&$ or$ at least$ he sai& they &i&. He no, began to&e%lore my necessary &e%arture$ an& begge& me to select

somebo&y at his Court to ,hom I shoul& be ,illing to gie

him oer for future treatment. . . .I tol& him fran"ly that

the only %erson ,hom I ,oul& recommen& as his

%sycho%ath ,as his youngest son$ Prince (mar Singh$ ,ho

,as then a han&some$ honest+loo"ing youth. His Highness

a%%roing of my choice$ I sho,e& the young Prince ho, to

treat his father. . . . The MaharaEah F!anbir SinghG &ie& a

fe, years later Fin 244BG$ an& ,as succee&e& by his el&est

son$ ,hom ,as a,ay at Srinagar at the time of my isit to

Jammu$ an& ,hom$ therefore$ I &i& not meet. . . .The &ay

fi8e& for my &e%arture haing come$ the MaharaEah$

fin&ing me ob&urate about %rolonging my isit$ consente&

to receie me in au&ience for the leae. So I ,ent to the

Palace for the last time Fon -oember D3$ 244;G. . . .e

foun& His Highness$ ,ith his Prime Minister *e,anuest that

I shoul& acce%t the articles as His Highness "hillat

com%limentary %resent


27/52

for the last time. -o other reigning In&ian Prince ,hom I

hae met has left so %leasant im%ressions on my

memory. . . .# 1olume III$ %%. 62+5.uotes %art of the aboe narratie on %%. 2B+2B7 of hisIn+earh of the Masters. Imme&iately follo,ing this account by Olcott$

Johnson comments as follo,s:

#here &oes this lea& in the >uest for the historical Master

M.@ Kither F2G Olcott is &eliberately hi&ing the fact of his

previo#s a.#aintane,ith !anbir Singh #nder another

persona$ or FDGthe Master M( was someone else. (nother

%ossibility F;G$perhaps the most likely$ is that HP) ha& so

befu&&le& Olcott that he ,as >uite confuse& as to the

i&entities of the Masters. n&oubte&ly$ he ,oul& be un&er

or&ers to conceal their i&entities. . . .# %. 2B7.< )rac"etsan& italics a&&e&.

In regar&s to Possibility F;G ,hich Johnson says is #%erha%s the most

li"ely# e8%lanation$ I as" Johnson to e8%lain ho, Henry S. Olcott coul&

be so confuse& oer the i&entities of the Masters that the Colonel coul&

not %lainly see an& reogni/ethat MaharaEa !anbir Singh either was or

was not the same %ersonasthe Master Morya ,hom Olcott ha& seen on

numerous occasions at )ombay an& else,here.

Concerning Possibility F2G$ ,hat &oes Johnson mean or im%ly by Olcotts

#previo#sa.#aintane,ith !anbir Singh #nder another persona#@ Ho,

is Johnsons #!anbir Singh un&er another %ersona# to be relate& to

Olcotts testimony of being isite& numerous times by the Master

Morya@

#here &oes all ofthis lea& in the >uest for the historical Master M.@#

Ta"ing a commonsense$ &o,n to earth a%%roach to Olcotts testimony$ I

,oul& suggest that Johnsons Possibility FDG is the most likelye8%lanation.

I ,oul& conclu&e that Master Morya #,as someone else# other than

!anbir Singh. In other ,or&s$ Olcott ha& met t,o separate#flesh an&

bloo human beings+++one man "no,n as Morya an& the other man

"no,n as MaharaEa !anbir Singh.

Johnsons thesis that afititio#sMorya #%ersona# ,as a #coer# for the

realMaharaEa !anbir Singh is notsu%%orte& by the totalityof Olcotts

testimony. Aet in his latest boo"Initiates of Theosophial Masters$

Johnson is still insisting that #s#bstantialF@@G ei&ence suggests that

Master Morya of Theoso%hical tra&ition may be a fictionaliation of the


28/52

maharaEa. . . .# %. ;< Italics a&&e&.

Will The Real Morya 0lease Take %is T#rban Off(T,o real flesh an& bloo& men

or

one #Persona# an& one MaharaEa@

Part III: Other Testimonies of Kncounters ,ith the

Master Morya

I ,ill no, turn to other testimonies of encounters ,ith the Master M. an&

see ho, Johnson gra%%les ,ith these a&&itional accounts. Johnson

%resents S. !. !amas,amier's story of meeting the Mahatma Morya on

%%. DB+;5 ofInitiates Of Theosophial Masters. Johnson tells us:

#S. !amaba&ra !amas,amier ,as a cler" fromTiruneleli in South In&ia$ on leae after a nerous

brea"&o,n. /ollo,ing HP) on her traels$ on October B

F244DG he allege&ly ,ent from *arEeeling into Si""im an&

%enetrate& t,enty miles beyon& the bor&er$ ,here he

claime& to hae met the Master M....# %. DB.


29/52

D6+D63 ofIn +earh Of The Masters(

I gie an e8cer%t from !amas,amier's October$ 244D account:

#...I su&&enly sa, a solitary horseman gallo%ing to,ar&sme from the o%%osite &irection. /rom his tall stature an&

the e8%ert ,ay he manage& the animal$ I thought he ,as

some military officer of the Si""im !aEa...)ut as he

a%%roache& me$ he reine& the stee&. I loo"e& at an&

recognie& him instantly. . . .I ,as in the. . . %resence

of...my o,n reere& 1#r#FMoryaG. . . .The ery same

instant sa, me %rostrate& on the groun& at his feet. I arose

at his comman&....He ,ears a short blac" bear&$ an& long

blac" hair hanging &o,n to his breast...He ,ore a yello,

mantle line& ,ith fur$ an& on his hea&...a yello, Tibetan

felt ca%...I ha& a long tal" ,ith him. He tol& me to go nofurther$ for I ,oul& come to grief. He sai& I shoul& ,ait

%atiently if I ,ante& to become an acce%te& $hela...)efore

he left$ t,o more men came on horsebac"$ his atten&ants I

su%%ose$ %robably $helas$ for they ,ere &resse&...li"e

himself$ ,ith long hair streaming &o,n their bac"s. They

follo,e& the Mahatma$ as he left$ at a gentle trot....#

uote& from Sen Ke"s-amodarAnd The 0ioneers Of

The Theosophial Movement$ 23B$ %%. D3B+D37.uestion: #)ut ,hat coul& he Fthe

MaharaEa of ?ashmirG hae been &oing in Si""im@# here is Si""im in

relation to ?ashmir@ Loo"ing at a ma% of In&ia$ one obseres that

Si""im is locate& on the far northeastern si&e of In&ia ,hile ?ashmir is

locate& on the far north,estern si&e.I3the #real M# is !anbir Singh$

then I ,oul& agree that !amas,amier's account is har& to acce%t at face

alue. Obiously$ !anbir Singh has obligations at home as monarch of

his "ing&om an& cannot be ,an&ering aroun& on the other si&e of In&ia9

Therefore$ it is not sur%rising that Johnson tries to cast &oubt on

!amas,amier's testimony. I ,oul& sus%ect that if !amas,amier's


30/52

encounter ha& ta"en %lace in the icinity of !anbir's %alace in Jammu$

Johnson ,oul& hae use& the account to su%%ort his !anbir Singh

hy%othesis. )ut if one is ,illing to acce%t !amas,amier's testimony at

fae val#eas Johnson ,as ,ith Olcotts #Ooton Liatto# accountuence of !amas,amier's re%ort Fabout

meeting Master MoryaG raises the >uestion of ho, much of

it HP) may hae ,ritten for him. That an elaborate

scheme of &ece%tion ,as in&ee& being engineere& is

a%%arent from these letters. . . .# %%. DB D4.uarters the %reious year.%enry Olott was also a witness to this

-eember, )77) eno#nteran& %ens the follo,ing ,or&s to (.O. Hume:

#I am gla& to be able to sen& you the testimony of still

another ,itness ,ho has seen my $hohanFMoryaG$ an&

un&er most faourable circumstances....I neer sa, the

)rother loo"ing more s%len&i& than he &i& to+night in the

bright moonlight. Mr. !Famas,amierG is a )rahman of the

highest caste his brother or cousin is$ I beliee$ chief %riest

to the MaharaEah of Traancore


33/52

a short time before ,e ,ent out for the ri&e....# %. 7D


34/52

Christo%her Lane author of The Making Of A +pirit#al Movement: The

;ntold +tory Of 0a#l Twithell And &kankar< hae change& their

o%inions from belieing HP)'s Masters ,ere entirelyfictional to

acce%ting more or less< Johnson's thesis about M. an& ?.H. If Johnsons

assertion is correct$ I ,oul& strongly urge Tillett an& Lane to re+ealuatetheir ne, %ositions. In light of ,hat I &ocument in this %a%er$ these t,o

scholars may ,ant to return to their former ie,s.

In summary$ it ,oul& a%%ear that Johnson ,ants to use someof Olcotts

testimony on the Masters to buttress his o,n thesis$ but ,oul& %refer to

&o,n%lay or omit othertestimony by Olcott that is not consistent ,ith

an&$ in fact$ contra&icts his conEectures. (lthough he accuse& Mr.

!ichar&+-afarre of #ea&ing ei&ence$# is Johnson not guilty himself of

ignoring ei&ence an& testimony #%resumably because it conflicts ,ith

other sources he %refers#@ /urthermore$ Johnson is >uite ,illing to

accuse !amas,amier of lying ,hen the latters testimony of meetingMorya in Si""im contra&icts Johnsons s%eculations.B#t Olott4s

testimony of the Master Morya oming to Bombay on n#mero#s oasions

also r#ns o#nter to !ohnson4s on8et#res. Is #something# ,rong ,ith

Olcotts )ombay testimony@ Is Johnson ,illing to entertain the

%ossibility that Olcott might also be giing false testimony@ )ut if Olcott

is lying about the Masters a%%earances at )ombay$ ,ho e8ce%t

Johnson@@< ,oul& be foolish enough to acce%t Olcotts other testimony

about a&e%ts isiting him in -e, Aor"$ (mritsar$ an& Lahore@

Let it be clearly un&erstoo&$ I am notsuggesting that Olcott lie& about

any of his meetings ,ith the (&e%ts. In fact$ I agree ,ith Johnson that

Olcott encountere& real a&e%ts in -e, Aor"$ (mritsar an& Lahore. )ut I

,oul& go further an& maintain that the remaining encounters Olcott ha&

,ith a&e%ts at )ombay$ Colombo an& else,here shoul& also be ta"en at

face alue( In other words, if one wants to be onsistent in one4s thinking

on the s#b8et, why aept some of Olott4s testimony on the Masters while

re8eting or at least ignoring the rest of it2Of course$ Johnson has a thesis

that he is oblige& to &efen&. He has committe& himself to certain

i&entifications of the Masters M. an& ?.H. Has Johnson %ainte& himself

into the %roerbial #corner#@

(t the ery least$ I ,oul& suggest that these Si""im an& )ombay

accounts are sim%ly more evidene sho,ing the im%lausibility an&

irrationality of Johnson's hy%othesis on !anbir SinghMorya. It is my

o%inion that these arious testimonies refute Johnson's thesis. Johnsons

conEectures ,ith their contorte& #reasoning# &o notaccount for the

maEority of the Theoso%hical ei&encetestimony concerning Morya. His

hy%othesis is not a cre&ible e8%lanation ,hen the bul" of ei&ence is

carefully consi&ere&.


35/52

P(!T I1

Mohini ChatterEis (llege& #*ece%tion#

On %. of The Masters Revealed$ Johnson %ens these ,or&s about his

thesis on the Masters:

#(lthough much of HP)s %ortrayal of Morya an& ?oot

Hoomi ,as &esigne& to mislea& in or&er to %rotect their

%riacy$ enough accurate information ,as inclu&e& to

ma"e a %ersuasie case for their i&entities as these

historical figures. In 2445$ the Mahatmas letters ,ere full

of geogra%hical references to PunEab an& ?ashmir. )ut in

the ne8t fe, years$ a coer story about their resi&ence in a

Tibetan ashram ,as %romote& an& a number of falsetestimonies concocte& as a &iersionary tactic.#

I ,oul& remin& the rea&er that this so+calle& #coer story# is Johnsons

#inention# use& by him to #e8%lain a,ay# any ei&encetestimony

contra&ictory of his thesis on M. an& ?.H. Continuing Johnsons

narratie:

#Mahatma Letters gae instructions for this &ece%tion$ for

instance$ telling HP)s young In&ian &isci%le Mohini

ChatterEi$ Ma"e it as strong as you can$ an& hae all the

,itnesses at *arEeeling an& *ehra. #

Johnson a&&s more &etails on Mohini ChatterEis allege& #&ece%tion# in

Initiates Of Theosophial Masters$ %. 6D:

#Mohinis article The Himalayan )rothers+++*o They

K8ist@ Foriginally %ublishe& in TheTheosophist$ *ecember$

244;G. . .re%resents %art of a ,ell+orchestrate& scheme to

shore u% faith in the Masters. Mohini re%orts on t,o

in&e%en&ent %roofs of the e8istence of a Tibetan

brotherhoo& calle& the ?oothoom%as or men of ?oot

Hoomi. One account is from a Tibetan %e&&ler in

*arEeeling$ the other from a )rahmacharin at *ehra *un.

The letter from ?H &irecting Mohini to ,rite the article is

>uite s%ecific: I ,ant you$ my &ear boy$ to ,rite an

account for the Theosophist$ of ,hat the %e&lar sai&$ an&

the *ehra )rahmacharia. Ma"e it as strong as you can$

an& hae all the ,itnesses at *arEeeling an& *ehra. )ut the

name is ,ritten ?oothoom%a &isci%les of ?ut+hoomi< tho

%ronounce& ?ethoomba. rite an& sen& it to %asi"a


36/52

FHP)$ e&itor of TheTheosophistG$ (llahaba&.#

On the ne8t %age$ Johnson ,rites:

#*amo&ar ,as the chela ,ho met real Masters in Lahorean& Jammu= !amas,amier an& Mohini ,ere ,illing tools

in a scheme to simultaneously %roe the a&e%ts e8istence

an& &istort their i&entities. This e8%lains ?Hs %eculiar

em%hasis to Mohini: Ma"e it as strong as you can$ an&

hae all the ,itnesses at *arEeeling an& *ehra. hy

hae the ,itnesses any,here in %articular$ e8ce%t to

mislea& rea&ers as to the ,hereabouts of the Mahatmas@#

Clearly$ Johnson ,ants to conclu&e that ?.H.s ,or&s #Ma"e it as

strong as you can$ an& hae all the ,itnesses at *arEeeling an& *ehra.#uestions an& ans,ers ,ritten belo, my Interrogators

boo"$ com%lete the nonsensical satire. /rom this

&escri%tion the rea&er may Eu&ge the Eoiality of H.P.).s

tem%erament at that %erio&$ an& of the "in&ly license

allo,e& us in our &ealings ,ith the Teachers. . . .# %. 62$

2376 %rinting.


43/52

Clic" on the %icture to ie, a larger ersion

P(!T 1IHO'S PLLI-0 HOSK LK0@

O! HO C(- AO TKLL HK- IT IS #*ISI-/O!M(TIO-# O!

-OT@

On %. of The Masters Revealed$ Johnson ,rites:

#In 2445$ the Mahatmas letters ,ere full of geogra%hical

references to PunEab an& ?ashmir. )ut in the ne8t fe,

years$ a coer story about their resi&ence in a Tibetan

ashram ,as %romote& an& a number of false testimonies

concocte& as a &iersionary tactic. . . .#

)ut Johnson assures the rea&er that:

#H.P.) &i& indeedhae connections in Tibet= the )engali

e8%lorer Sarat Chan&ra *as$ ,ho s%ent more than a year

there$ ,as on intimate terms,ith Olcott. n&er the

authoriation of the Panchen Lamas %rime minister

FSengchen Tul"uG$ *as obtaine& a large number of

authentic te8ts ,hich he seemsto hae for,ar&e& to HP)
http://www.blavatsky.net/gen/refute/caldwell/picture4.jpg


44/52

ia Olcott for use in her ,ritings. )ut this rather in&irect

lin" to the court of the Panchen Lama had nothing to do

withMorya an& ?oot Hoomi$ although HP) ma&e

elaborate efforts to %ortray the In&ian Mahatmas as

resi&ents of Shigatse.# %.< Italics a&&e&.

Later in the same boo" in the cha%ter title& #Sengchen Tul"u# %%. 234+

D5


45/52

narratie:

#Sarat )abu is a most interesting man to tal" ,ith. . . .He

actually lie& thirteen months at Teshu Lum%o

FTashilhun%o$ Shigatse$ TibetG$ in the househol& of theTashi Lama$ the secon& in ran" in the Lamaic hierarchy=

ma&e the Eourney thence to Lhassa un&er faorable

aus%ices= sa, an& tal"e& ,ith the *alai Lama$ or Su%reme

Pontiff$ an& brought bac" Fto In&iaG manuscri%ts$ %rinte&

boo"s$ an& other souenirs of his memorable Eourney. He

,as goo& enough to gie me one of the soft sil"en scarfs

that the Tashi Lama$ at a rece%tion$ lai& across his

han&s. . . .# Olcott is ,riting of his first meeting ,ith *as

at *arEeeling$ In&ia in June$ 244B= Old -iary Leaves$ 1ol. ;$

%%. DB+D7$ 237D %rinting.


46/52

a corres%on&ent in Tibet . . . FisG #rio#sly oinidental,ith

*ass secon& Eourney Fto TibetG. HP)s 244D %ilgrimage to

*arEeeling also seemsto %oint to the *asSengchen

connection.# Italics a&&e&.

Collating his remar"s on the Tibetan scri%tures allege&ly gien to HP)$

,e fin& that Johnson ,ants to beliee that *as gae certain Tibetan

manuscri%ts to )laats"y. /urthermore$ these MSS %ur%orte&ly

constitute the actual te8ts for H.P.).s+tan/as Of -/yanan& The =oie Of

The +ilene. (%%arently$ Olcott ,as the interme&iary ,ho too" the MSS

from *as an& for,ar&e& them to )laats"y.

I am struc" by the ague$ s%eculatie nature of Johnsons statements.

*oes Johnson %roi&e us ,ith any soli& ei&ence that ,oul& su%%ort

these s%eculations@ (s far as I can tell$ he offers no s%ecific$ &irect

ei&ence= instea& he gies only #curiously coinci&ental#s#ggestionsan&possibilities.

*i& Johnson try to locate the %a%ers of Sarat Chan&ra *as@ *i& he

research Olcotts han&,ritten &iaries that might she& more light on

Olcotts meetings ,ith *as@ *i& Johnson try to locate any

corres%on&ence bet,een Olcott an& )laats"y that might mention these

Tibetan manuscri%ts@ Or any corres%on&ence bet,een Olcott an& *as or

bet,een )laats"y an& *as@ ho translate& these manuscri%ts for

HP)@ *i& *as sen& Knglish translations to HP) an& "ee% the original

manuscri%ts@ here are these manuscri%ts to&ay@ (re they %resere&

some,here in In&ia@ (re there %ublishe& inentories of the boo"s an&

manuscri%ts *as brought bac" from Tibet@ *i& Johnson research the

Sarat Chan&ra *as collection of Tibetan manuscri%ts2 Why wo#ld -as or

Olott keep 6silent6abo#t the tr#e origin of these man#sriptssu%%ose&ly

gien to HP) an& then %ublishe& by her in The +eret -otrinean& The

=oie of the +ileneuestions that arise as one

thin"s about Johnsons assertions. nfortunately$ ?. Paul Johnson &oes

notans,er these >uestions in his boo". He seems content Eust tospe#late

an& insin#ateinstea& of &oing the necessary research in or&er to erify or

falsify his hy%otheses.

Throughout all three of his boo"s$ Johnson in&ulges in e*essive

s%eculation an& constantly iolates the historical rule of #0ie ei&ence.#

Jac>ues )arun an& Henry /. 0raff ,rite on this "in& of spe#lation9

spinningin their classic ,or" The Modern Researher:

#Nthe rule of 0ie ei&ence is not to be iolate& ,ithout

im%unity. -o matter ho, %ossible or %lausible the authors

conEecture$ it cannot be acce%te& as historical truth if he

has only his hunch to su%%ort it. hat ,oul& be more than


47/52

a&e>uate for illage gossi% &oes not begin to be enough for

history. . . . The ,riter. . .Fmay haeG foun& his hy%othesis

consistent ,ith the facts he ha& gathere&$ an& from this

consistency he &e&uce& confirmation. He may be imagine&

as saying: . . . certain facts can be ma&e to su%%ort myie,$ therefore my ie, is %roe&. )ut %roof demands

deisive evidene= this means evidene that onfirms one

viewan& e*l#des its rivals. . . . FThe authorsG facts ,ill fit

his ie, andhis critics andseeral other %ossible ie,s as

,ell. To say this is to say that they su%%ort none of them in

such a ,ay as to &iscriminate bet,een truth an&

conEecture. In short$ mere consistency is not enough$ nor

mere %lausibility$ for both can a%%ly to a ,i&e ariety of

hy%otheses. The comman&ment about furnishing ei&ence

that is &ecisie lea&s us$ therefore$ to a secon& fun&amental

rule: in history$ as in life critically consi&ere&, tr#th restsnot on possibility nor on pla#sibility b#t on probability.

Probability is use& here in a strict sense. It means the

balance of chances that$given s#h and s#h evidene

Fitalics a&&e&G$ the eent it recor&s ha%%ene& in a certain

,ay= or$ in other cases$ that a su%%ose& eent &i& not in

fact ta"e %lace. . . .# /ourth e&ition$ 234B$ %%. 276+27B.The Masters Revealed$ %. 2;

Caldwell, Daniel H - K Paul Johnson's House of Card

Documents

Transcript of Caldwell, Daniel H - K Paul Johnson's House of Card