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

Questions to Steve Stubbs about the Ooton Liatto Case and other cases

Expand Messages
  • danielhcaldwell
    Dear Steve, Thanks for your posting at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5036 I gather from what you write that you are in complete agreement
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Steve,

      Thanks for your posting at:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5036

      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
      http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcottsevenaccounts.htm ]

      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
      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:

      http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcottsevenaccounts.htm

      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
      BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
      http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
    • Steve Stubbs
      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
      Message 2 of 3 , 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.

        Steve

        --- danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
        > Dear Steve,
        >
        > Thanks for your posting at:
        >
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5036
        >
        >
        > 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
        >
        http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcottsevenaccounts.htm
        > ]
        >
        > 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
        >
        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:
        >
        >
        http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcottsevenaccounts.htm
        >
        >
        > 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
        > BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
        > 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!
        http://greetings.yahoo.com
      • danielhcaldwell
        Dear Steve, Thanks for your comments at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5195 Steve, I think you have hit the nail right on the head when you
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 7, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Steve,

          Thanks for your comments at:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5195

          Steve, I think you have hit the nail right on the head when you write:

          ". . . the only proof we can have of the masters' historical
          existence is testimony from a qualified witness, and we have that
          from Olcott. . . .Olcott's testimony is sufficient in my judgement to
          establish their corporeal existence as legal persons. . . . . 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."

          It has puzzled me to no small degree why this very issue has not been
          directly and straightforwardly addressed by some of the participants
          on this forum.

          It is true that Brigitte Mühlegger has written one or two
          suggestive remarks on this subject. For example, at one point she
          wrote:

          " . . . I didn't want to take Olcott's letter [ See Case B at:
          http://blavatskyarchives.com/ol9ac.htm#B ] to a prospective convert
          on face value."

          "Who could [take this Case B on face value], after reading [Olcott's]
          'People of the other world' and finding out what this man was all
          capable of believing."

          "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
          absolutly 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)"

          Notice Mühlegger's reference to "Olcott's Master fantasies".

          I assume that Brigitte Mühlegger would apply this line of argument
          to most if not all of Olcott's testimony given at:

          http://blavatskyarchives.com/ol9ac.htm

          Am I wrong in making this assumption?

          Furthermore, one can only speculate on what Mühlegger is actually
          suggesting when she writes:

          ". . . the herb stories . . . are most likely true . . . and probably
          the source (that is 'interpretation') of many a 'Master'story."

          Is she suggesting that some of Olcott's "Master stories" are
          only "fantasies" and that the "Masters" Olcott claimed to have met
          are only "imagined beings"?

          Maybe one of these days Mühlegger will share with us her
          detailed "thinking and reasoning" about all of this. Maybe she
          actually has some good points but unfortunately she seems quite
          reticent to give her exact opinion and offer details and specifics.

          Daniel H. Caldwell
          BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
          http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.