Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00439)

Dear Daniel Caldwell,

Please understand that this will be my only response to this line of
inquiry.

----- Original Message -----
From: "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 10:09 AM
Subject: Theos-World What does Bill Meredith think about Olcott's
Experiences with the Masters?


> Dear Bill Meredith,
>
> Below are four encounters Olcott had with the Masters:


Daniel, look carefully at how you phrase the above statement of fact as well
as your selection of a subject line. It is the Blavatsky-biased and
Masters-certain Daniel Caldwell who chose those words. A more reasonable
researcher, while trying to maintain a modicum of balance, might have chosen
words similiar to these: "What does Bill Meredith think about Olcott's
claim to have encountered 'masters'? and "Below are four historical events
in which Olcott claims that he had an encounter with a person or persons
whom he (Olcott) at times refers to as 'brother' or 'master'.

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/chart4stepmorya79bm.htm
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/chart4stepmorya80bm.htm
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/chart4stepgoldtem80bm.htm
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/chart4stepmorya81bm.htm
>
> There are at least five possible explanations of his
> encounters with the Masters:

Again Daniel, your statement above reveals your bias in presuming that
Olcott had an encounter with the Masters. Otherwise you might have written
"There are at least five possible explanations for each of these four
events."


> 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.


6. Olcott perhaps met a man whom he believed was a 'brother' or 'master' or
'mahatma' or 'adept.'


> Steve Stubbs has already given his view about
> Olcott's encounters. He believes Hypothesis 5 is the
> best explanation. See his post at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/6269

Good for Steve.

> Brigitte Muehlegger has avoided giving her honest
> and forthright opinion on these four encounters.

Of course this is just your opinion. Perhaps in refusing to respond
directly to your incessant interogatories, she is being more honest and
forthright than all the rest of us put together.

> Can we assume that Muehlegger agrees with Steve
> Stubbs' explanation concerning Olcott's encounters
> with the Masters?

You may assume whatever pleases you.
I have no desire to assume anything about Brigitte.

> Bill, since you gave several comments on the Ooton
> Liatto case, I'm wondering what your view is on the
> above four cases?

Well I think I have been clear in my answers above.

>What hypothesis do you believe
> best explains Olcott's encounters?

Yes, the most that can be achieved here is the adoption of a hypothesis
which one *believes* best in explaining the events. Thank you for
acknowledging that there is no _conclusive proof_ -- only *beliefs*.

> Do you agree or
> disagree with Stubbs' explanation?

While number 5 is very possible and I might hope that it is the correct
explanation and it clearly seems to fit in with Steve's personal beliefs, in
my mind number 6 is more likely to be a *better* i.e. _more believeable_
explanation of the historical events in question.

Now, Daniel, I have done my best to explain. I do hope that it suffices.
Researching the accounts of various historical events for evidence that
'adepts' exist is a poor methodology which I am not inclined to pursue
further. I do not need Olcott's testimony or your charts to validate my
belief in extraordinary men and women capable of extraordinary
accomplishments.

Bill Meredith