5048Re: COMPARING & CONTRASTING Some of the Different Interpretations about the Masters
- Feb 3, 2002Dear Steve,
Thanks for your posting at:
I gather from what you write that you are in complete agreement with
K. Paul Johnson that in the Ooton Liatto Case [see Case A at
two "physically present people [were] conversing with Olcott....".
In other words, you maintain that the two men in Olcott's apartment
were NOT imaginary figments of Olcott's hallucination but real flesh
and blood human beings. I also assume you agree with Johnson that
these two men were ADEPTS. If all of this is true, then it appears
that Johnson, you and I are in agreement on our assessments of this
It will be quite interesting to see if Brigitte Mühlegger will
CLEARLY state her position on the Ooton Liatto case. And if
she differs with our assessment, then I hope she will take the time
and effort to state her reasons for her DIFFERING opinion.
Moving to the next related issue.
From what you have written at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5036 , may we safely
assume that you also accept "at face value" the other cases cited at:
For example, in Cases B, C and F, Olcott reports that his Master
[Morya] came to visit and talk with him. In light of what you have
written, I am assuming that you accept that a real physical person
came to visit Olcott on each of these occasions. And furthermore
that this person was Blavatsky's Master who used the pseudonym M. Am
I right in making these assumptions?
One more example: In Case D, Olcott testified he saw "one of the
Masters" at the Golden Temple in Amritsar. Do you accept that a real
flesh and blood man gave HPB and Olcott each a rose?
Thanking you in advance for your further input and clarification of
Daniel H. Caldwell
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>