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

Steve Stubbs' comments about the Masters not being "fictions, fantasies", etc.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.