Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00311)

Steve,

You write that you still consider Olcott's 
testimony in a positive light and you add:

"It would be nice if there were more than one witness with Olcott's 
qualifications."

But exactly what qualifications [positive?] of Olcott's 
are you referring to?

K. Paul Johnson considers Olcott a LIAR. Is this the
qualification you were thinking about?? :)

Johnson wrote:

"Liars are not necessarily people who never tell the truth, 
as some skeptical writers about HPB seem to assume. They 
may lie for strategic reasons, and according to my study 
of the evidence both HPB and Olcott had abundant reasons 
for LYING ABOUT THE MASTERS. The challenge for the 
historical researcher who lives in a world of myriad shades 
of grey rather than simplistic black and white is to determine 
when people are lying and when they are telling the truth, 
and why. Olcott did not lie all the time, and wanted to 
convey to the world his genuine conviction of the reality 
of the Masters. But he sometimes was obliged to lie in
order to protect their privacy, just as HPB was. My
conclusion about truthtelling and lying by Olcott is 
the same as about HPB; both wanted to tell as much of 
the truth about the Masters as they could without 
risking their exposure to the public." quoted from"
http://members.tripod.com/~dlane5/pjimp.html CAPS ADDED

Ah, but the hard part is "to determine when people 
are lying and when they are telling the truth."

So Steve, do you think Olcott was lying when he related
in OLD DIARY LEAVES, Vol. II that at Bombay in the year 1880:

"On the evening of 4th August, a Mahatma visited HPB, and I was 
called in to see him before he left. He dictated a long and important 
letter to an influential friend of ours at Paris, and gave me 
important hints about the management of current [Theosophical] 
Society affairs. I was sent away before his visit terminated, and 
left him sitting in HPB's room." p. 208

Steve, was Olcott lying about a Mahatma actually visiting him and 
HPB on this date?

In Johnson's first book, it would appear that Johnson believed Olcott 
was telling the truth when Olcott wrote that a certain man ["a 
Mahatma"] visited the Founders as narrated above.

Johnson was even willing at that time to speculate that 
this "Mahatma" might be a certain historical person named Afghani. 

Johnson wrote:

"In light of available knowledge of Afghani's comings and goings in 
India, can he be connected to the Founders of the Theosophical 
Society? The evidence is intriguing if not convincing. The first 
problem is that Olcott rarely identifies adepts when they appear in 
his narrative, beyond the fact of their status as such. Thus, on 
August 4, 1880, [Olcott tells us that] `a Mahatma visited H.P.B.,
and I was called in to see him before he left. He dictated a long and 
important letter to an influential friend of ours at Paris, and gave 
me important hints about the management of current Society 
affairs....'"

"Although there is no stated identity of this Mahatma, the mention of 
Paris rings true, since Afghani was indeed to proceed to Paris, where 
he must have had an influential friend from the evidence presented." 

Notice that Johnson writes:

"The first problem is that Olcott rarely identifies adepts when they 
appear in his narrative, beyond the fact of their status as such."

Again he writes:

". . . there is no stated identity of this Mahatma . . . . "

But is the above incident or Johnson's comments about the incident 
RELATED in anyway to Johnson's initial comment about LIARS and more 
specifically his comment that Olcott ". .. sometimes was obliged to 
lie in order to protect their privacy, just as HPB was"???

I consulted Olcott's handwritten diary for that date and found that 
Olcott did identify the Mahatma. It was Morya.

So how does this identification that I made fit in with Johnson's 
speculation that "Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Kashmir has many 
correspondences to Morya as described by HPB"? 

Johnson assures his readers in THE MASTERS REVEALED that enough 
accurate information is available to make a persuasive case for 
Morya's identity as this historical figure [Maharaja Ranbir Singh]. 
(pp. 5-6.) 

In light of the above, I ask you Steve:

Was the Master Morya sitting in HPB's room on Aug. 4, 1880 actually 
the Maharaja Ranbir Singh???? 

I know of no evidence that would locate the Maharaja in Bombay on 
that date. And Johnson has never provided any evidence that the 
Maharaja was in Bombay on that date.

THEREFORE WHO IN THE HELL WAS THIS MAN IN BOMBAY ON THAT DATE?????

Publicly Olcott never identified who the "Mahatma" was. It was only 
more than one hundred years later that I discovered and published 
Olcott's diary entry showing that the unidentified Mahatma was 
actually Morya.

So is Olcott lying in this incident? 

Hoping you will think thru the issues I have raised and not ignore 
them as some people have.

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
--------------------------------------------------------------