Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00431)

Concerning the Ooton Liatto case, Brigitte Muehlegger wrote:

"That there [were]... real visitors, that even could be 
called 'adepts', as long [as] one clarifies what is me[a]nt 
by 'adepts', and w[h]ich 'masonic order' in this case they belonged 
to, I have NEVER doubted . . . . " caps added.

It is not clear to me why Muehlegger accepts the "real visitor" 
explanation.

For example, Muehlegger has stated a number of times that Blavatsky 
STAGED encounters with "messengers" and "masters" using confederates. 
Why is Muehlegger therefore so convinced that in the Ooton Liatto 
case Blavatsky did NOT use confederates to dupe Olcott? If Muehlegger 
is really convinced that Blavatsky staged an encounter using a maid, 
then what about the Ooton Liatto case? 

There are at least 5 possible explanations for the Ooton Liatto case:

1. Olcott perhaps was simply lying and this whole
experience never actually happened.
2. Olcott was perhaps duped by a confederate hired by
Blavatsky to personate a Master.
3. Olcott was perhaps hypnotized by Blavatsky to see
this "imaginary" adept.
4. Olcott was perhaps under the influence of drugs & 
hallucinated the whole experience.
5. Olcott perhaps met a real physical man who was an
adept.

I am still waiting for Muehlegger to tell this public Theosophical 
forum her real opinion of the following four encounters Olcott had 
with the Masters:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/chart4stepmorya79bm.htm
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/chart4stepmorya80bm.htm
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/chart4stepgoldtem80bm.htm
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/chart4stepmorya81bm.htm

I suspect that Muehlegger is actually "afraid" to tell us her real 
opinion of these four cases.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things
at their right value; and unless a judge compares
notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a
correct decision."
H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.