Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00088)

Brian/Brigitte,

When you write of "the 'staging' of Blavatsky's 'Masters'", what are 
you exactly referring to? Are you maintaining that you do not 
believe "that the mahatmas were real men as they were claimed to be"?

Since you apparently want your readers to believe that you are a 
rational, critical and thinking human being on these subjects, then 
please let us know if you agree or disagree with Steve Stubbs' view 
expressed below. If you disagree with Steve, then please explain 
your reasoning so that the rest of us will be in a better position to 
understand if your view is actually more rational, etc. than those of 
the so-called Theosophical fundamentalists. Now here is Steve 
Stubbs' comments:

". . . 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. . . . "
Quoted from:
http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/200202/tt00173.html

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc