Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00246)

SUBJECT: Exploring the Thinking & Reasoning behind the Differing 
Interpretations of Henry Olcott's Encounters with the Masters

I hope that a few of us on this forum will try to explore the 
thinking and reasoning behind the differing interpretations of 
Olcott's encounters with the Masters.

>From the chart at 

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

it is apparent that there are disagreements in the views held on the 
same subject by Stubbs, Johnson and Mühlegger.

There are good reasons to dwell on these disagreements.

(1) First of all, I sometimes get the general impression from some 
of the postings on this forum (for example, some of Mühlegger's or 
TenBroeck's) that there is only one reasonable, valid or sensible 
view concerning various aspects of Blavatsky's life or claims. This 
may be a misimpression on my part. But it is important to be aware 
that REASONABLE minds may differ in their views on the same subject.  

(2) Furthermore, one need not be a "Theosophical Fundamentalist" to 
disagree with an interpretation given by, for example, Mühlegger.

(3) I believe each of us can learn a great deal from looking at the 
actual thinking and reasoning behind each differing view. Each of us 
might learn something new or at least gain a different perspective on 
the subject matter by trying to UNDERSTAND the differing views. 

(4) I have no doubt that Stubbs, Johnson and Mühlegger have been 
using what I call "The Four Step Process of Discovery". See:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/history1.htm
http://blavatskyarchives.com/history2.htm
http://blavatskyarchives.com/history3.htm
http://blavatskyarchives.com/history4.htm
http://blavatskyarchives.com/history5.htm

Yet their conclusions are different in many cases. Why?  

(5) It is really not important whether the "view" or "interpretation" 
is Johnson's or Stubbs' or Mühlegger's or TenBroeck's or mine. 
Then what is important? I would suggest that our discussion should 
center on the reasonableness, the coherency, etc. of the various 
explanations or views.

(6) What kind of evidence might "prove" or at least tip the balance 
in favor of one "view" over another? Also what evidence is not being 
considered in Explanation A or Interpretation B or View C? etc. 

Some of the suggestions above might lead us to the real heart of the 
subject matter instead of being sidetracked into the ad hominem 
arguments, etc. that often plague our discussions on this forum.

More later on the chart at:

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

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