Steve Stubbs' comments about the Masters not being "fictions, fantasies", etc.
- Dear Steve,
Thanks for your comments at:
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
" . . . 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:
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