Bill: "I dislike being placed in the position of defending Brigitte,
however she has said repeatedly that what she writes on this list is
hurried, not checked nor cross-checked, and certainly not spell-
checked. In other words she is just chatting. After all, this list is
Theos-*talk*. She has also said that what she considers her scholarly
work is posted on her web site.
And of course its fine to refuse to clarify. Especially for someone as
aggressive as Daniel. I must ask Daniel why he continues to pursue
this line concerning the existence of "real" adepts (whatever "real"
means as opposed to just plain real.)
Now it has been my experience in spiritually-based intellectual
discussionsthat gentlemen do not force others to say "Uncle". If they
did, I would still be aggressively asking Daniel to answer my
questions about probability vs. possibility, criticisms of Paul
Johnson and not Sylvia Cranston, and attack dog ethics. When Daniel
is backed into an spiritually-based intellectual corner he simply
goes silent for several days and then reappears on a slightly
different heading while completely ignoring the previous thread. That
is Daniel. I accept that. Brigitte is different. I accept that.
We do not know the potential bias that Daniel might unintentionally
introduce. We can guess at it though. Daniel has not "come clean" on
the reasoning behind his 8 year dogging of Paul Johnson. "

Brigitte:
Bill, with this last sentence you hit the nail on the top, I will
tell you why I have refused conversation with Daniel about this
same list of "visitations" that he has posted since October on
Universal Seekers more then 30 times now (!) , talking about an
obsession.

Leaving the question open why he does not address the other list
members with this list.Why Daniel participates so little or almost
not in the general conversation on this list. Why Daniel never
responds to any of the many other subjects I write about.
And why I have consistenly told people to read Paul's books on the
same topic.

Pls note most of what Daniel covers in his "visitations" list is
covered where, in K.Paul Johnsen's books !

Who did Daniel extensifly discussed this same list, in relentless e-
mail exchanges , with .Paul Johnson !

(Example, theos-l Jan 2001: Daniel:
Many of my criticisms of this part of his (K. Paul Johnson's )
work would ALSO apply to the rest of his book (THE MASTERS REVEALED).

Paul Johnson:
Not so since nowhere other than in the two chapters devoted to Thakar
Singh and Ranbir Singh is the guessing game about HPB's pseudonymous
characters nearly as major a theme, and in most chapters it is not a
factor at all.

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. )

So that is why I wrote Steve (and you can ask Steve), privately as
far back as October 2001 wenn on Universal Seekers Daniel first
started firing of this same list of "visitations" to me:

(Brigitte to Steve last year) That I didn't want to get into with
Daniel because it is all covered in Paul's book, and Daniel who knows
I fully agree with Paul (Febr.19 p.s.: that was officially known via
my web site where already one year before that in 2000 under the
scorn of Daniel, I stated all of this publicly on the www) via me
only wants to get back to Paul who doesn't want to discuss the issue
with Daniel.

And Paul only allowed Daniel on his discussion list (Universal
Seekers) only after Daniel promished never to bring up
the "visitations" list or the subject of Theosopophical "Masters",
but of course Daniel didn't keep his promise and as a result was
trown off Universal Seekers.
Even last week when I wrote to Daniel (Febr. 19 p.s. : still
referring to Daniel's postings on Universal Seekers early October
2001) that Daniel only covered 5% of Paul's TMR in his combined
critiques of Paul on the internet, Daniel right away fired of all of
the links I just had written about that they covered only 5% of
Paul's research, so if I start giving my opinion about
Daniel's "visitations" list Daniel will just go mad, and over and
over fire of all these same links.So I wont respond to Daniel on this
issue. (end Oct. mail to Steve)

So far in short what was my explanation that time to Steve for not
responding to Daniel, and is still the same explanation now.
It is not that I don't have any opinion on the "visitations" on
Daniel lists, I do, and I did let everybody know my opinion by
repeatedly announcing that I agree with Paul Johnson's take on these
matters, and kept referring to people that if they want to know my
opinion ( my agreement with them) they should read K.Pal Johnson's
The Masters Revealed, and as proof that TMR is really answerring
Daniels questions see Paul comments on the same "visitations" issue
above (in brackets , theo-l Jan.2001 quote, wich is on my web site
to).

I also wrote to Steve one month ago:
"Hello Steve,
Reg. Daniels mail: "And unfortunately for Olcott Blavatsky didn't
either, she clearly wrote about Olcott's Master fantasies to
Hartmann: 'Where you speek of the army of deluded-and the imaginary
Mahatmas of Olcott-you are absolutely and sadly right. Have I not
strugled and fought against Olcott's ardent and gushing imagination,
and tried to stop him every day of my life?' (Blavatsky,"The Path"
March 1896,p.368)"

Brigitte: As an example of the "story's" and "fantasies" of Olcott I
was of course reffering to things like the rain in Olcott's
apartment (that I wrote you about privately at the same time I was
posting the above March 1896 Blavatsky quote on Universal Seekers
wich since then Daniel has already re-posted nign (9) times now, and
will never give up it seems) , the materialized flowers and so on.
That there where real visitors, that even could be called "adepts",
as long one clarifies what is ment by "adepts", and wich "masonic
order" in this case they belonged to, I have never doubted and even
try to write about myself in my first editorial on my web page ano
2000.

But for example, you from what I gather from your earlier mails as
an initiate at one point of certain grades within the AMORC system,
would qualify as a "adept", if it was you who had been visiting
Olcott's apartment.
In fact there were many much smaller and much less informative
organisations then just per example AMORC now, of some sorts during
Blavatsky's time.

And all of this I am convinced of, has a lot more to do with the
Theosphical Masters then at first site appears, even they are 100%
real of course.

I think the point Bill Meredith today on theos-talk was trying to
make is maybe also a valid one;"Say it ain't so!
Why I just saw the guy myself last December at the mall.
He looked like SC. He talked like SC. (He even said Merry Christmas
to me of all people). He laughed like SC. Plus when I left the mall I
saw him a few minutes later in front of Walmart. (I think he shops
there since the elves went on strike at the NP) My wife was with me
and can confirm this story. This constitutes two physical sightings
of a real man answering to the name Santa Claus.
Make of it what you will, but I tell you neither my wife nor I were
smoking any herbs at the time we saw SC."

The above is from one of my mails to Steve last month where we
where discussing related subjects.
I know very well what Daniel is talking about, I just agree with
Paul's interpretations of these visitations period.

On the other hand the last 4-5 months I have been focusing on other
subjects, like that Blavatsky copied most (but if I once said "all",
that was just to provoke Adelasie in maybe do something to and
instead of only asking questions give some answers about Blavatsky's
sources wich she to date Adelasie still 100% circumvents) I have
repeatedly mentioned on this list and many times privatly to Steve
also, that I leave open some of it could have come from Documents
like of Das wich Paul suggest as a "possibility", or other, but it
would be nice to see some specific evidence in each case. The
evidence instead we have so far is where Blavatsky copied from other
books because these books are there for all to double check and see
that it is true.

I am still waiting to see any evidence by matching it up with the
original documents that where that time not yet published, to be
verified in Blavatsky's writings. but for the record, again I am
open to that possibility, but so far based on the total lack of this
evidence have to therefore doubt it. So far only published sources
have constantly shown up in a verifiable way in Blavatsky's writings.
Yet there are many tausends of unpublished original documents of
Hinduism, Buddhism , and Tibetan Buddhism in specific, plus many many
others out of the general region, that have been translated the last
100 years, that where not published that time, where are they in
Blavatsky's work, or why only published books show up there, except
for some "glue" as Blavatsky expressed in the SD herself.

Paul has also stated similar things on Universal Seekers last year ,
there is no disagreement between Paul and me. I just try to go into
other details related to the Blavatsky puzzle. And yes, I was just
trying to chat on this list like everyone else, and hope for a
response to the issues (historical contents) the new mails I
post.
Bri.