Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00527)

Daniel: "Paul Johnson even makes statements in his three books that 
Blavatsky's teachings and writings were ALSO influenced by her 
contacts with various esotericists and "adepts". Keep in mind that 
these are esotericists and adepts NOT quoted in HPB's writings."

Again, you used Paul in your above refferrence to sidetrack, becouse 
you clearly did NOT answer my following mail today: 3847 "Re: The 
genesis of the Master Letters, Daniel's l" as a whole !

And how well you did with Paul can easely be shown by quoting anyone 
of your conversations. As a matter of fact Paul Johnson's closing 
statement here pretty well reflects your attactics towards myself 
also (and what happened to Daniels's associate by the way ?):
Daniel: 
Paul writes: "I view M. as a composite character." In other words, it 
would appear that Paul doesn't really believe that there was a flesh 
and blood human being known as Morya. 

Paul Johnson: 
Not quite. I don't think that the person usually referred to by the 
name was actually named Morya, do you? Nor do I think that all the 
stories about him can possibly refer to the same person and all be 
true, because there are mutual contradictions, don't you agree? I 
don't know how to tell which stories HPB tells about Morya are true, 
do you? All I can do is examine the people in HPB's environment for 
parallels to some aspects of the Morya descriptions, and report them. 
It seems that you are conflating two questions: 
1) do any of the Morya accounts refer to any real flesh and blood 
human being and 
2) do all of the Morya accounts refer to the same flesh and blood 
human being. 
My answer to 1 is yes, to 2 no, that's impossible. 

Daniel: 
writes about Master M in a letter or an article, her reference is 
actually to a composite character she created in her own imagination. 

Paul Johnson: 
Here is the misunderstanding. No, that is not at all what I mean. 
Rather, when HPB writes about Master M in a letter or an article, her 
reference may be to one particular flesh and blood human being, or to 
another, or to a fiction. But I don't think in each particular 
instance she is necessarily doing all three. 

Daniel: 
nocturnal visits from Koot Hoomi and Djual Kul, suggests a link 
between the Singh Sabha and these Masters." caps added It is quite 
significant that Paul Johnson believes that Master Koot Hoomi at 
Lahore was a "SOLID HISTORICAL" personage..... QUITE CORPOREAL. 

Paul Johnson: 
That doesn't quite get it. I believe that someone corporeal appeared 
at that tent in Lahore, someone associated with the Singh Sabha. I 
don't think that his real name was Koot Hoomi. Olcott and Damodar 
both called this person Koot Hoomi; Brown didn't really have a basis 
for knowing anything more than that someone had shown up in the tent. 
So when I say that someone "appears" as a solid historical personage 
I don't mean that he is such; rather that in the accounts he is 
portrayed as such (in a much more corporeal way than in lots of the 
M. and K.H. stories.) 

Daniel: 
Whether Paul's speculation about the identity of this personage is 
true or false, the fact remains that Paul believes this visitor at 
Lahore was a real flesh and blood person. Right? At least so it would 
appear from Paul's prose. 
Probably. And judging from the circumstances, someone associated with 
the Singh Sabha. 
Now as to the identity of this person, 
Paul writes: ". . . Thakar Singh is, to date, the most likely 
candidate I have found." 
But my question was and is: Was Thakar Singh in Lahore on these 
specific two days? 

Paul Johnson: 
Good question. All I know is that he was in regular contact with the 
Lahore Singh Sabha leaders. 
And when "Koot Hoomi" appears soon thereafter at Jammu (where Olcott, 
Brown and Damodar subsequently traveled) again Paul believes KH is 
corporal and might have been Thakar Singh. 
Am I assuming too much here? 
Rather than say "KH is corpor[e]al" it might be better for the sake 
of clarity to say "the person referred to in the story as KH is 
corporeal" so that we don't confuse the issue. 

Daniel: 
Was Thakar Singh ("the most likely candidate") actually in both 
Lahore and Jammu on those specific dates? Or was Thakar Singh 
actually somewhere else in India on those days? 
If one could show that Thakar Singh was NOT in Lahore and Jammu on 
those dates, what would Paul be willing to concede? That Thakar Singh 
was not in Lahore and Jammu on those dates. That whomever is 
described as "KH" in these stories, to the extent that they are true, 
could not have been Thakar Singh. That the crucial information 
pointing towards alternative IDs is the report in the Theosophist 
supplement of January 1884, which includes the following names: 
"His Highness Raja Harbans Singh and other Sirdars...Sirdar Dayal 
Singh Majethia...Bhai Gurmukh Singh..Sheikh Wahabuddin, Commissioner, 
deputed by HH. the Maharaja of Kashmir." The latter escorted the 
group to Jammu from Lahore. 
And if Thakar Singh was NOT in those places on those dates, would the 
visitor KH still be considered by Paul as a "SOLID HISTORICAL" 
personage..... QUITE CORPOREAL. Or would Paul reclassify KH as 
an "elusive semi-ethereal being"? 

Paul Johnson: 
Daniel, you are totally conflating two issues here. If not more. 
1. Was there some real flesh and blood person who visited Olcott et 
al in the tent outside Lahore and who was identified as KH by Olcott, 
Damodar, and Brown? 
2. What is the ontological status of "Master K.H.?" 
In answer to your question, you seem to have missed the point. IN 
SOME PLACES KOOT HOOMI APPEARS AS a solid historical corporeal being. 
IN OTHER ACCOUNTS KOOT HOOMI APPEARS AS an elusive semi-ethereal 
being. That is reflective of the way the appearance is described in 
the accounts. I would not say from either of these types of accounts 
that KH is a solid corporeal being or an elusive ethereal one. KH is 
a name given to an entity about whom many reports are circulated. 
As for proof that Thakar Singh was not in Lahore or Jammu on the 
dates given, it would not affect any judgment about KH's ontological 
status because that is something independent of the question of who 
if anyone made those visits to those persons. It would simply rule 
out Thakar as the inspirer of those particular stories. 

Daniel: 
I have an associate going to India and part of his intent is to try 
to answer these specific questions about Thakar Singh. It will be 
interesting to see what he finds. 

Paul Johnson: 
Indeed. But he is half wasting a trip IMO if he goes without 
intending to answer the obvious follow up question: if Thakar Singh 
was not there, who was there who would most likely account for the 
reports in question? To approach the question from the narrow POV of 
trying to refute one person's hypothesis about these events, rather 
than from the broad POV of trying to find out more about what 
happened, would be unfortunate. 

And as a reflection of Daniel instead of answerring my mails as a 
whole and instead find only a few points that where ussefull only to 
attack, Paul Johnson expressed the sequence of this as:

1. Identification 
That is, a certain degree of immersion in HPB's writings and 
adherence to her teachings leads to such identifications as "I AM a 
Theosophist" and "I AM a disciple of HPB" which in pathological cases 
become so total that the person cannot even imagine himself having 
ideas different from or in conflict with those of HPB and Theosophy. 
Which equates to a complete lack of empathy for anyone with different 
ideas. This lack of empathy and inability to think outside the 
dogmatic box leads to an inability to communicate civilly with 
any "unbeliever" on the subject of the dogmatism. What is weird is 
that the most vicious attacks by fundamentalist true believers are 
always on more liberal adherents of their own tradition rather than 
on total outsiders. 

2. Inflation 
Once identification has occurred, the boundary between self and the 
object of worship becomes fluid; in states of exaltation it appears 
to vanish. The believer experiences an influx of spiritual power 
when contemplating the object of worship/identification. Particulars 
are expanded to universals, e.g. HPB is "THE messenger" not just "a 
messenger" and her teachers are THE Masters, not just some Masters. 

3. Misperception of attack 
Then, even the friendliest and best-intentioned effort to explain the 
spiritual teacher with whom the believer has identified is perceived 
as a personal attack, precisely to the extent that it challenges the 
dogmatic beliefs about said teacher which have become a central part 
of the believer's identity. 

4. Retaliation for perceived attack 
And thus, imagining hostility, destructive motives, and such on the 
part of the person who comes up with a different interpretation, the 
believer feels fully justified in launching blistering personal 
attacks on the supposed guilty party. 

5. Implicit threat to others 
And the message behind this is not just "I hate so and so for 
challenging what I believe, and am proud and eager to express this 
feeling" but "If you step out of line and say anything I disagree 
with, I am going to hate and attack you too." 

The above is quoted from my web page.
Brigitte