Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00562)

Thanks Daniel for this very interesting chart.
My personal interpretation tends to either your or 
Steve's view.
My English dictionaries cannot help me to find out 
the detailed difference between "corporeal" and 
"physical".
Could you please explain these difference?
Perhaps other students with English as second 
language are also uncertain.
Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 10:26 PM
Subject: Theos-World To Vladimir: About Paul 
Johnson's Interpretations concerning the Masters




Dear Vladimir,

Since you show some interest in the subject
about the Masters and Johnson's intepretatins,
let me try to show you some simple comparisons.

Look at the chart on the following webpage:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/masterschart.htm

See the Ooton Liatto case given by Olcott at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/chart4stepootonliattobm.htm

What is Paul Johnson's interpretation of this 
case??

His previous words can be found at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonooton.htm

Now here I agree with him.

Now let us look at another case also given by
Olcott which is at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/chart4stepmorya79bm.htm

You might think that Johnson would also agree that
Olcott possibly met a real physical man who was an 
adept.

But here Olcott tells us that this was the Master 
Morya
coming to Bombay T.S. Headquarters on horseback.

In light of Johnson's "theory" which he summarizes
near the beginning of his book THE MASTERS 
REVEALED as
follows:

"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...."

I say in light of the above, is the person on 
horseback
at T.S. Headquarters Maharaja Ranbir Singh??

I asked Johnson that one time and he wrote:

"I don't regard it as impossible, but implausible. 
[I] could not
find evidence as to Ranbir's whereabouts at the 
time, but at any
rate he was unlikely to travel alone."

And I said in reply:

Yes, I agree with Johnson that the monarch of a 
kingdom would
probably not travel alone but in fact would travel 
with his guards,
servants, etc. If Ranbir Singh traveled all the 
way from Kashmir to
Bombay, his visit should be documented in 
historical records such as
the various Indian newspapers, etc. So a 
perceptive reader might
ask: Is something wrong here? Is Johnson's 
hypothesis (about Ranbir
Singh/Morya) untrue? Or is something wrong with 
Colonel Olcott's
testimony?

If Master Morya was physically in Bombay on that 
date
while the Maharajah Ranbir Singh was physically in 
Kashmir on the
same date, then that would show that Johnson's 
hypothesis is not
true.

Johnson has repeatedly tried to discount this 
testimony as given
by Olcott concerning Morya in Bombay in 1879.

He wrote:

"If you want to use it as weight against another 
identification
[like Johnson's own Ranbir Singh 
identification??]....fine. But it
lacks much weight when there is no confirmation of 
the account...."

And then Johnson even wrote to me apparently in an 
attempt to
discount even more the 1879 incident:

"You...assume the accuracy of accounts [of 
meetings with the
Masters] by the Founders [Olcott and H.P.B.] even 
when there is no
evidence to confirm them. This will only fly with 
a Theosophical
audience."

But as I pointed out at the time in the Ooton 
Liatto account there
is no more evidence to confirm that account than 
the 1879 account yet
Johnson in his book had written about the Ooton 
Liatto account as
follows:

"The names Ooton Liatto and Hilarion Smerdis have 
been equally
impossible to find in biographical and historical 
reference books.
While both may be pseudonyms, there is little 
doubt that two real
adepts visited Olcott in New York."

Using the same critiria, one could say something 
very similar about
the 1879 account in Bombay involving the Master 
Morya.

Yet since this 1879 case if taken at face value 
seriously undermines
Johnson's speculation about Ranbir Singh/Morya, 
Johnson has
continued over the years to pooh-pooh a similar 
intepretation of the
1879 account and other related accounts.

See the "reasons" Johnson later came up with to 
devalue and/or
discount these cases at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonparanormal3.htm

And my analysis of his reasons clearly show that 
they have little if
any support from a careful study of the relevant 
cases and evidence.

This is why I concluded one of my studies with the 
following:

===================================================
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 more background on the above, see:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnson.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc
















Yahoo! Groups Links


theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com