Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00341)

CASE A: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON 
LIATTO IN NEW YORK CITY 

"...I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) 
when there came a tap at the door---I said 
'come in' and there entered the [younger] 
Bro[ther] with another dark skinned gentleman 
of about fifty....We took cigars and chatted 
for a while....[Then Olcott relates that a 
rain shower started in the room. Olcott 
continues the account:] They sat there and 
quietly smoked their cigars, while mine 
became too wet to burn....finally the younger 
of the two (who gave me his name as Ooton 
Liatto) said I needn't worry nothing would 
be damaged....[Olcott also relates at this 
point that several other phenomena occurred. 
Olcott then continues the account:] I asked 
Liatto if he knew Madam B[lavatsky]....the 
elder Bro[ther]...[said] that with her 
permission they would call upon her. I ran 
downstairs---rushed into Madams parlour---
and---there sat these same two identical 
men smoking with her and chatting....I said 
nothing but rushed up stairs again tore open 
my door and---the men were not there---I ran 
down again, they had disappeared--- I . . . 
looked out the window---and saw them turning 
the corner...." 
------------------------------------------------------------------

CASE B: MORYA COMES ON HORSEBACK TO BOMBAY IN JULY, 1879 TO VISIT 
OLCOTT

"This same Brother once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming in 
full day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a servant into 
the front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow (she being at the time in the 
other bungalow talking with those who were there). He [Morya] came to 
scold me roundly for something I had done in T.S. matters, and as 
H.P.B. was also to blame, he telegraphed to her to come, that is to 
say, he turned his face and extended his finger in the direction of 
the place she was in. She came over at once with a rush, and seeing 
him dropped to her knees and paid him reverence. My voice and his had 
been heard by those in the other bungalow, but only H.P.B. and I, and 
the servant saw him." [Extract from a letter written by Colonel Henry 
S. Olcott to A.O. Hume on Sept. 30, 1881. Quoted in Hints On Esoteric 
Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, p. 80.] 

"[I] had visit in body of the Sahib [Morya]!! [He] sent Babula to my 
room to call me to H.P.B.'s bungalow, and there we had a most 
important private interview...." [Extract from Olcott's handwritten 
diary for Tuesday, July 15, 1879.] 
-----------------------------------------------------------

Concerning Case A, Paul Johnson was willing to write in THE MASTERS 
REVEALED:

". . . there is little doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in 
New York...."

Yet concerning Case B, Johnson has NOT been willing to also write:

". . . there is little doubt that a real adept visited Olcott in
Bombay...."

Why the differing assessment by Johnson? This goes to the heart of 
the matter, IMO.

To my understanding, IF it is valid in Case A to write:

". . . there is little doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in 
New York...."

then it is equally valid concerning Case B to comment:

". . . there is little doubt that a real adept visited Olcott in
Bombay...."

Apparently Johnson tried to make some fundamental differences between 
the two cases (A and B) in one of his replies to some of my 
criticisms, but as I have shown in my essay at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonparanormal3.htm

his arguments are fallacious and do not hold up under careful 
scrutiny.

Is this the way other readers see it?

Daniel
http://blavatskystudycenter.org