5195Re: Theos-World Questions to Steve Stubbs about the Ooton Liatto Case and other cases
- Feb 7, 2002Hi, Daniel:
As I said earlier, the only proof we can have of the
masters' historical existence is testimony from a
qualified witness, and we have that from Olcott. We
do not have it from Brown, Ramaswamier, et al, but
Olcott's testimony is sufficient in my judgement to
establish their corporeal existence as legal persons.
So I agree with Paul that their identities were
disguised, but I cannot agree with anyone that they
were fictions, fantasies, imagined beings, trance
personalities, or any such thing as that unless the
Olcott evidence can be satisfactorily disposed of. I
raised that question some time ago, and no one has
ever addressed it, so for that reason I remain
stubbornly convinced that the mahatmas were real men
as they were claimed to be.
That said, I see no reason to doubt their claim that
they belonged to an organization headquartered in
northern India which has come to be referred to as the
"White Brotherhood" and which had Tibertan connections
--- danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
> Dear Steve,http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5036
> 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 two
> "physically present
> people [were] conversing with Olcott....". [see Case
> A at
> 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.
> Steve, am I right in what I write above?
> Moving to the next related issue.
> From what you have written at
> , may we safelyhttp://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcottsevenaccounts.htm
> 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
> 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
> your position.
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>