Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00231)

If you read closely what I said was that I am considerably less 
confident than I was two years ago that the Masters existed, or, more 
precisely, that the case for their existence is solid. The reason is 
that so much of the evidence (Brown, Ramaswamier, et al) can be shown 
not to be evidential even though these people were certainly relating 
what they sctually saw. There remains a small amount of evidence 
which stands up to scrutiny, but it is not as reassuring as I would 
like.

It remains true to this day that the anti-Theosophists have ducked 
the issue every time I have asked them to comment on Olcott's 
evidence. Every time I asked for comment on that, someone would try 
to redirect attention to Brown or Ramaswamier or someone else whose 
evidence can easily be dismissed. So I still do not know if they 
have a good response to the question.


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> On Feb. 7, 2002, Steve Stubbs wrote:
> 
> ". . . 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 judgment 
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." 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5195
> 
> Today July 17, 2003, Steve Stubbs commented:
> 
> "After reading THE MASTERS REVEALED by K. Paul Johnson I am having 
> increasing doubts about the 'adepts.' K. Paul Johnson, as you know, 
> is the most important writer on Theosophy ever and he says it is 
all 
> garbage from beginning to end and top to bottom. I am not persuaded 
> that Theosophy is all garbage but some of his arguments are 
> compelling and I am no longer as sure of the existence of such 
beings 
> as before. . . . " 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12697
> 
> I wonder what Steve is SPECIFICALLY referring to when he comments 
> that "some of his [Johnson's} arguments are compelling. . . . "
> 
> I seriously doubt that Steve will give us any specifics so that we 
> will be in a better position to know exactly why Steve believes 
> Johnson's arguments are compelling.
> 
> Interested readers might look at some of Johnson's arguments about 
> the Masters and three critiques of those arguments. See:
> 
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/johnson.htm
> 
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonparanormal3.htm
> 
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/johnson.htm
> 
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at 
> their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and 
> hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision."
> H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 2
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> You can always access our main site by
> simply typing into the URL address
> bar the following 6 characters:
> 
> hpb.cc
> --------------------------------------------------------------