Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00173)

I note belatedly that you, Dallas, claim that Daniel has
"refuted" my "thesis."  It should be noted that Daniel focuses
all his attention on weaknesses of the case for identifying
Thakar Singh as the primary basis for K.H. and Ranbir Singh as
the primary basis for Morya.  Those are two out of 32 characters
presented in TMR as Masters of HPB.  Moreover, in the chapters on
those two persons, most of the attention is devoted to a
straightforward depiction of the historical characters and their
relationship to HPB and/or the TS.  All in all, only about 5% of the
book is devoted to the subject which Daniel has focused on
exclusively.  So even if he had successfully refuted those
particular speculations (which I vigorously dispute) that would
not refute the book's thesis, but only two hypotheses.  It's less
important to me to demonstrate the relationship between
Ranbir/Thakar and Morya/KH than to demonstrate that Ranbir and
Thakar were in the broad sense "adept sponsors" of the TS and of
HPB-- regardless of the status of M and KH as fictional,
semi-fictional, etc.

Which is why I've had a hard time being patient with this line of
attack.  The thesis is *not* that any particular Master described
in Theosophical literature is exclusively based on any particular
historical figure I've unearthed.  The thesis is rather that the
succession of teachers and mentors recounted in the book
illuminates the entire question of who and what HPB's Masters
were.  And frankly, I think and hope that Daniel might now both
a) admit that this is indeed the main thesis, and that any
particular equivalences proposed between specific Master figures
and specific historical characters are merely subsidiary
hypotheses and b) admit that this thesis (the *real* thesis) is
not only *not refuted by him, but partly accepted* since he has
not taken issue with any other of my 30 characters.

Could you comment, Daniel?

Namaste,
Paul