HPB's Masters as "shadowy beings"
Nov 18, 2000 02:44 PM
by Blavatsky Archives
Subject: HPB's Masters as "shadowy beings"
Thanks Art for your comments below. I see that again as on previous
occasions you insist on characterizing the Mahatmas as "shadowy beings."
But exactly what do you mean by this phrase "shadowy beings"? I also find
it hard to understand why you insist that the Masters of HPB were nothing
but "spirit guides".
Take for example, this account by William T. Brown:
"The place to which our narrative really next pertains is the city of
Lahore. Here, as elsewhere, Colonel Olcott delivered stirring addresses
large audiences; but Lahore has a special interest, because there we saw,
his own physical body, Mahatma Koot Hoomi himself."
"On the afternoon of the 19th November, I saw the Master in broad daylight,
and recognized him. . . . At Jammu I had another opportunity of seeing
Mahatma Koot Hoomi in propria persona. One evening I went to the end of
"compound" (private enclosure), and there I found the Master awaiting my
approach. I saluted in European fashion, and came, hat in hand, to within
few yards of the place on which he was standing. After a minute or so he
marched away, the noise of his footsteps on the gravel being markedly
What is your opinion of these events?
Even Paul Johnson is of the opinion that:
"There were two points in the history of the TS at which the Masters Morya
and Koot Hoomi appeared as SOLID HISTORICAL PERSONAGES rather than elusive
semi-ethereal beings. At both of these points, the same triangular
configuration is apparent: the Founders of the TS, the Maharaja Ranbir
Singh, and an Amritsar Sikh Sirdar are found working in collusion. In
October and November 1880, the Founders' trip to the Punjab to meet these
figures coincided with the beginning of the Mahatma correspondence. In
November 1883, Olcott's trip to Lahore and Jammu again involved Punjabi
Sirdars and the Maharaja of Kashmir." caps added
And elsewhere Johnson writes:
"What I do contend is that a visit [from Master KH]
occurring during a journey that is well grounded
in historical evidence, documented by three
witnesses [Brown, Olcott, Damodar]who
portray the Master as arriving and departing in A QUITE
CORPOREAL MANNER, is much more solid evidence relevant to
identifying K.H. than is found elsewhere in Theosophical
literature. Furthermore, the coincidence of Olcott, Brown and
Damodar spending their days in Lahore in the company of Sirdars
and Singh Sabha leaders, then receiving nocturnal visits from
Koot Hoomi and Djual Kul, suggests a link between the Singh
Sabha and these Masters. The following week, the same kind of
Mahatmic contacts continued while the three travelers were in
Ranbir Singh's palace, suggesting a similar link with him. caps added.
Art, it seems to me that you consistently ignore all evidence that would
doubt your own "explanation" that HPB's Masters were not real flesh and
blood men but only non-physical "spirit guides".
You have every right to believe whatever you want to about HPB's Masters.
But when you write:
"I do feel strongly that to hold to the existence of these shadowy beings
to bring a kind of disrepute on us and the work of theosophy."
and also when you point out (as you have done for the last year or two)
that thinking, reasonable students of Theosophy should come to a similar
then I suggest that you provide this forum with some of the detailed evidence
and reasoning that you believe would lead other theosophists to what you
think is the clear and obvious conclusion. I am assuming you would want
to share your insights with other students of Theosophy especially if you
believe that the truth on this matter should be sought with diligence and
>What I understand is that the Masters as commonly understood
>by Theosophists is a concept that was heavily influenced by the
>spirit guides then used in the spiritualist movement... here I refer
>to the mysterious letters that appear from the Mahatmas...
>The tradition of the Mahasiddhis in India and Tibet is much older
>than that late grafting of our historical Theosophical movement.
>The "Mahatma" idea is really i believe a synthesis between the
>Rosicrucian concept of the invisible brotherhood and the
>european ideas of what a Mahatma was then current in the early
>twentieth century... These ideas are of historical interest only and
>should be respected as such. I do feel strongly that to hold to the
>existence of these shadowy beings is to bring a kind of disrepute
>on us and the work of theosophy.
Daniel H. Caldwell
You can always access our site by
simply typing into the URL address
bar the following 6 characters:
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application