Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5195Re: Theos-World Questions to Steve Stubbs about the Ooton Liatto Case and other cases

Expand Messages
  • Steve Stubbs
    Feb 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, 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
      and/or influence.


      --- danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
      > Dear 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 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 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
      > your position.
      > Daniel H. Caldwell
      > http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      Do You Yahoo!?
      Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic