Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00012)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> K. Paul Johnson considers Olcott a LIAR. Is this the
> qualification you were thinking about?? :)

He may be right but there is some element of bias here. He considers 
pro-Blavatsky witnesses (Ramaswamier, et al) consistently to be liars 
and anti-Blavatsky witnesses consistently to be tellers of whole 
truth. I think these biases areunconscious, but they appear in 
everyone, pro- and antu-Theosophical that I have read. Only neutral 
observers can assess the evidence objectively.

Unless I am mistaken he was born some considerable time after Olcott 
died. The people who knew Olcott, friends and enemies alike, 
considered him a man of unimpeachable integrity. Some of his enemies 
thought him a fool. But only those critics who never met him thought 
he was a liar.

The only exception of which I am aware is Max Mueller, who 
interviewed Olcott. In the course of the interview, Olcott allegedly 
told him that miracles were necessary because new religions, like new 
gardens, have to be MANURED. Olcott was surprised that this private 
comment made its way into print and tried to retract it in his OLD 
DIARY LEAVES. That is the only bit of evidence of which I am aware 
that supports the thesis of K. Paul Johndon.