Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00076)

______________________________________________________________________
[1]
Daniel Caldwell wrote:

> >I ASSUME that you [Bjorn] believe/accept the basic, major claims of Madame H.P.
> >Blavatsky?  Some of these claims are:
> >
> >That she was the messenger of a certain Association of Adepts and that
> >she was sent into the outer world to give out the ancient teachings of
> >Theosophia.

Jerry Schueler commented:

> This can be taken two ways: an exoteric "association" of physical
> Adepts and an esoteric one such as the Brotherhood of Compassion
> as described by G de Purucker. I am quite convinced that she was
> of the latter. Whether of the former (a physical group of living Adepts) or
> not I am sceptical and don't much care one way or another.

Daniel Caldwell replies:

It is not clear to me what would be the real difference between an
"exoteric" association and an "esoteric" one in this context.

You seem skeptical of "a physical GROUP of living adepts."  Paul Johnson
and others also seem skeptical of an association of physical adepts.  I
really don't see what is so unbelievable in such a view.  It would be
understandable coming from a non-Theosophist or a person with
anti-theosophical views, but to theosophists who accept many
"unorthodox" things, it is hard to see what is so difficult about
believing in an organized association of adepts.

Here are a several historical items regarding the adept association:

Henry Olcott testifies:

"I have seen several Mahatmas---maybe six of them---both in their
physical forms and in their astral bodies. . . . "

Elsewhere he writes:

"I know the Brothers to be living men and not spirits; and they have
TOLD me that there are schools, under appointed adepts, where their
Occult science is regularly taught." CAPS added.

THERE ARE SCHOOLS. . . .that is, organized centers, ashrams, etc. where
the Brothers congregate, etc.

________________________________________________________________
[2]
Daniel Caldwell wrote:

> >That she was in direct communication with these adepts, i.e. Morya, Koot
> >Hoomi and several other initiates.


Jerry Schueler commented:

> I think that we all must agree to this. The real question is whether
> these two individuals were actually members of a group of Adepts
> (they do not come off as traditional gurus, thats for sure).

Daniel Caldwell replies:

Again, why are you so skeptical that these two individuals were
"actually members of a group of Adepts"?  I really don't understand on
what such skepticism is based.  **If you can accept the reality of
several Mahatmas known by Madame Blavatsky, then why is it such a leap
of faith to be open to the possibility that these Adepts worked
together, etc. and were members of an association?**

Again consulting the historical records, we find that Damodar Mavalankar
gives testimony to the existence of the Adept association:

". . . . the next morning [Dec. 1883] . . . I had the good fortune of
being sent for, and permitted to visit a Sacred *Ashram* where I
remained for a few days in the blessed company of several of the much
doubted MAHATMAS of Himavat and Their disciples.  There I met not only
my beloved Gurudeva [KH] and Col. Olcott's Master [M], but several
others of the Fraternity, including One of the Highest.  I regret the
extremely personal nature of my visit to those thrice blessed regions,
prevents my saying more of it.  Suffice it that the place I was
permitted to visit is in the HIMALAYAS, not in any fanciful Summer Land
and that I saw Him in my own sthula sarira (physical body) and found my
Master identical with the form I had seen in the earlier days of my
Chelaship.  Thus, I saw my beloved Guru [KH] not only as a *living* man,
but actually as a young one in comparison with some other Sadhus of the
blessed company, only far kinder, and not above a merry remark and
conversation at times.  Thus on the second day of my arrival, after the
meal hour I was permitted to hold an intercourse for over an hour with
my Master. . . . "

Here we see Damodar speaking of a number of Adepts in one Ashram:   the
other Sadhus of the blessed company. . . .after the meal hour [maybe the
adepts and some of their chelas were actually eating together!!], etc.
etc.

In private letters to William Judge, Damodar writes much about the
"society" of the Mahatmas.  He attended one of the Council sessions at
which many Adepts were present.

In a subsequent letter, Damodar writes to Judge that he was taken to the
house of one of the Adepts in Sri Lanka.  In my historical research I
have even discovered the location of this incident.

Damodar writes:

"There in a little garden in front we found one of the Brothers sitting,
I had seen him before in the Council Room [where a number of Adepts were
gathered!!!] and it is to him that this place belongs. . . ."

In another letter Damodar tells of his out of the body experience to the
"Chief Central Place" of the Adept Fraternity.  My research indicates
that this place is located in the region just east-northeast of Ladakh
in Western Tibet.  Other theosophists in HPB's lifetime report having
gone to this place.  I realize that Paul Johnson considers Damodar's
OOBE as a mere hallucination but having had veridical OOBEs myself, I
can readily accept Damodar's account at face value.

And RELEVANT to the above subject is what I wrote in my critique of Paul
Johnson's thesis on M and KH:

Johnson devotes a chapter of his work The Masters Revealed (pp. 59-62)
to Olcott's encounter with Ooton Liatto and another unnamed Adept.
Johnson identifies Ooton Liatto with the Theosophical adept Hilarion
Smerdis. He writes:

". . . in May 1875, HPB's scrapbook noted that Hilarion and a companion
‘passed thro[ough] New York & Boston, thence thro[ough] California and
Japan back.’. . .A recent discovery by Joscelyn Godwin provides
intriguing evidence for the visit to New York by Hilarion mentioned in
HPB's diary [scrapbook?] in 1875....A letter from Olcott...describes
meeting an adept....at 433 West 34th Street." (pp. 59-60)

Here are relevant extracts from Olcott's letter (dated late 1875 or
early 1876):

"...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....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...." (Olcott’s account is given in full in Theosophical History,
Jan., 1994.)

Commenting on Olcott’s story, Johnson makes the following highly
significant admission:

"The names Ooton Liatto and Hilarion Smerdis have been equally
impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books. While
both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt that two real adepts
visited Olcott in New York." (p. 62)

The point I want to make on what I said in my critique is that here we
find Paul Johnson admitting the existence of two real adepts.  Here are
TWO adepts *associating* with each other, keeping each other's company.
****If this is admitted, then why is it so far-fetched to believe that
they might have had other Adept associates???****

Johnson believes that Ooton Liatto is probably Master Hilarion.  Well,
Hilarion (according to Olcott's diary) visited both HPB and him in Feb.
1881 in Bombay.  He reportedly was on his way to Tibetan regions.  Even
KH mentions him in a Mahatma Letter.  Again why is it so difficult to
believe that Hilarion, his unnamed associate in New York, Koot Hoomi and
OTHER adepts were part of an organized group of Initiates.

And if we believe BOTH of Olcott's accounts on Hilarion then he was one
to travel the world:  New York. . . . India, Tibet.  I would suggest
that maybe Hilarion was going to the "Central Central Place" in
Northwestern Tibet.

I really don't understand a person's MINDSET that will accept individaul
Theosophical adepts but won't accept the possibility that these adepts
belong to a organized group.

_______________________________________________________________________
[3]
Daniel Caldwell wrote:

> >That she was a tulku and the Mahatmas used her as an instrucment for
> >various purposes.
> >

Jerry Schueler commented:

> I accept her as a tulku, in which case her "mathatmas" were likely
> astral.

Daniel Caldwell replies:

But why were her Mahatmas "likely astral"?  By that I assume you mean
entities with no physical bodies??  Couldn't they have physical bodies
and still "overshadow" Madame Blavatsky? Is that so far-fetched?

IN SUMMARY, my own historical research leads me to conclude that HPB's
Masters and their association/society/fraternity had "ashrams" located
in various parts of India, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, and Tibet as well as in
other parts of the world.

Jerry, I will try to deal with some of your other comments in a
subsequent email.
________________________________________________________________________