Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00047)

----- Original Message -----
From: Blavatsky Archives <info@blavatskyarchives.com>
To: Theos Talk <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 5:14 PM
Subject: Theos-World Steve Stubbs concerning Nisikanta Chattopadhyaya
and more


>
> Steve Stubbs writes more about KH, Nisikanta
> Chatopadhyana and more. See below.
>
> Daniel
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
> Dear Brigitte and Daniel:
>
> Re your respective e-mails:
>
> If "Koot Hoomi" felt the need to use a pseudonym, then
> there must have been some reason he wanted to conceal
> his worldly identity. We don't have to look far to
> figure out what that reason might have been. People
> were naming their dogs and cats "Koot Hoomi." Had his
> worldly identity been known, he would have been
> ridiculed on at least four continents.
>
> But if his life had been as reclusive as he made it
> out to be, that would not have been a problem. Tibet
> had no post office before Younghusband's expedition in
> 1904. There was zero likelihood of him receiving any
> hate mail. Nobody was going to show up at the
> entrance to some Tibetan hermit's cave and give him a
> hard time.
>
> I think he did go into retreat from time to time, and
> I think he did live the contemplative life. But
> Blavatsky emphasized that he was not a monk. His
> complaints about being so terribly busy indicate that
> he was a man of affairs, and we get from his letters
> that he was a teacher of some kind. We tend to assume
> that he was an occult teacher exclusively, but there
> is no reason in any of the TS materials to reach this
> conclusion.

And the Master M. remarked about some of his personal habits that
could have been commented on. His writings point this up, in some of
his remarks in the letters about HPB. Master M said that he distrusted
women, and the only female allowed in his house was his sister. If he
was associating with a college, I would think that this fact might
have been commented on by some of his contemporaries.


> I think that, given that the object of the exercise
> was to keep the worldly identities of the mahatmas
> concealed, there are going to be some difficulties
> with the evidence, regardless of how we identify them.
> We will not, therefore, be able to prove the case
> beyond any reasonable doubt, but must instead search
> for the preponderance of evidence. We must expect
> that some inconsistencies will have been deliberately
> introduced into the evidence to throw us off scent.
> This will be true no matter who they turn out to be.

I wonder how good the records were kept in the 1880s. In Olcott's Old
Diary Leaves, he comments on the various Masters traveling through the
area, in route to other places, like Hillarion, and Seraphis, and
stopping at Adyar to visit before continuing on their journeys. Might
there still be steamship records - lists of passengers - in the old
archives still in existance?



> I identified Djual Kul, but I am going to have some
> fun with Daniel and keep the identity of "Morya" to
> myself, at least for the moment. I want to see what
> he comes up with, if indeed he is interested in the
> case. Here are the clues:


Did <this> DK have anything in common with the <DK> of Alice A.
Bailey? In her Autobiography, she tells of a friend of hers traveling
near the frontier of Tibet, wanting to meet DK in the body, and having
the resident British official of the region (in the 1930's) tell him
that the official was known, and was over the border into Tibet, and
that he never traveled, but that soon DK did appear riding a donkey or
horse, to confer with the friend, and presented him with a bundle of
insence to take back to AAB, as evidence that he did live in a
physical body. AAB says something about later inquiries of the British
officials revealing that this incident was in the British records.

He said that when his other duties permitted, he presided over some
senior monks at a monastery, and that he was reputed to be the senior
"abbot" of the monastery, but that he did not really have this
position.

Is this the same person that you have identified as <Djual Kul>?

More about Master M.--

> (1) He was an Indian nobleman, so proud of his
> Kshatriya caste that he chose the name of an ancient
> dynasty of Indian emperors for his pseudonym,
>
> (2) He went to the London Exhibition in 1851 with
> numerous other Indian princes,
>
> (4) He was of such rank that he was able to claim the
> overproud Brahmin Subba Rao as a disciple, at least
> for a time. That ended in 1887.
>
> (4) Like "KH" he was a man of affairs as well as a man
> of the spiritual world, and felt the need to conceal
> his identity. He is said not to have told even his
> servants about his occult interestsm but he gave the
> whole world a clue as to his interests in a clever
> saying which became quite famous.

And that he was remarkedly tall in stature. He could have been a
BasketBall Star in modern times.
And that he supposed to be about 400 years old in the late 1880s.
He was evidently there when the British took over India, and was he
still there when they left? Old British records might comment about
this. I should think that this would draw more attention than his
stature. Blavatsky mentions something of this in her "Caves & Jungles
of Hindustan".

Dennis