Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00180)

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your comments at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5195

Steve, I think you have hit the nail right on the head when you write:

". . . the only proof we can have of the masters' historical 
existence is testimony from a qualified witness, and we have that 
from Olcott. . . .Olcott's testimony is sufficient in my judgement to
establish their corporeal existence as legal persons. . . . . I 
cannot agree with anyone that they were fictions, fantasies, imagined 
beings, trance personalities, or any such thing as that unless the
Olcott evidence can be satisfactorily disposed of. I raised that 
question some time ago, and no one has ever addressed it, so for that 
reason I remain stubbornly convinced that the mahatmas were real men
as they were claimed to be."

It has puzzled me to no small degree why this very issue has not been 
directly and straightforwardly addressed by some of the participants 
on this forum.

It is true that Brigitte Mühlegger has written one or two
suggestive remarks on this subject. For example, at one point she 
wrote:

" . . . I didn't want to take Olcott's letter [ See Case B at:
http://blavatskyarchives.com/ol9ac.htm#B ] to a prospective convert 
on face value."

"Who could [take this Case B on face value], after reading [Olcott's]
'People of the other world' and finding out what this man was all 
capable of believing."

"And unfortunately for Olcott Blavatsky didn't either, she clearly 
wrote about Olcott's Master fantasies to Hartmann: 'Where you speek 
of the army of deluded-and the imaginary Mahatmas of Olcott-you are 
absolutly and sadly right. Have I not strugled and fought against 
Olcott's ardent and gushing imagination, and tried to stop him every 
day of my life?' (Blavatsky,"The Path" March 1896,p.368)" 

Notice Mühlegger's reference to "Olcott's Master fantasies".

I assume that Brigitte Mühlegger would apply this line of argument
to most if not all of Olcott's testimony given at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/ol9ac.htm

Am I wrong in making this assumption?

Furthermore, one can only speculate on what Mühlegger is actually 
suggesting when she writes:

". . . the herb stories . . . are most likely true . . . and probably 
the source (that is 'interpretation') of many a 'Master'story."

Is she suggesting that some of Olcott's "Master stories" are 
only "fantasies" and that the "Masters" Olcott claimed to have met 
are only "imagined beings"? 

Maybe one of these days Mühlegger will share with us her 
detailed "thinking and reasoning" about all of this. Maybe she 
actually has some good points but unfortunately she seems quite 
reticent to give her exact opinion and offer details and specifics.

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