Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00026)

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your posting at: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5036  

I gather from what you write that you are in complete agreement with 
K. Paul Johnson that in the Ooton Liatto Case [see Case A at 
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcottsevenaccounts.htm ]
two "physically present people [were] conversing with Olcott....".

In other words, you maintain that the two men in Olcott's apartment 
were NOT imaginary figments of Olcott's hallucination but real flesh 
and blood human beings. I also assume you agree with Johnson that 
these two men were ADEPTS. If all of this is true, then it appears 
that Johnson, you and I are in agreement on our assessments of this 
particular case.

It will be quite interesting to see if Brigitte Mühlegger will 
CLEARLY state her position on the Ooton Liatto case. And if 
she differs with our assessment, then I hope she will take the time 
and effort to state her reasons for her DIFFERING opinion.

Moving to the next related issue.

>From what you have written at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5036 , may we safely 
assume that you also accept "at face value" the other cases cited at:

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcottsevenaccounts.htm 

For example, in Cases B, C and F, Olcott reports that his Master 
[Morya] came to visit and talk with him. In light of what you have 
written, I am assuming that you accept that a real physical person 
came to visit Olcott on each of these occasions. And furthermore 
that this person was Blavatsky's Master who used the pseudonym M. Am 
I right in making these assumptions?

One more example: In Case D, Olcott testified he saw "one of the 
Masters" at the Golden Temple in Amritsar. Do you accept that a real 
flesh and blood man gave HPB and Olcott each a rose?  

Thanking you in advance for your further input and clarification of 
your position. 

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm