Conclusion


In summary, 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.


Blavatsky Net home |up| top