Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00336)

Steve, 

You wrote:

=============================================

I argued some time ago that DK Mavalankar may 
have been the worldly identity of the adept 
named Dkual Kul (also DK). The most striking
point of resemblance between the two is that 
both were called "the disinherited." a fact 
which does not pertain to any other major
figure of the TS in that period. There were 
also other minor issues (the same initials, 
the same specialization in astral projection,
etc.) As usual, there are points made in the 
TS material which argue against any possible 
identification, and the decision was made by
others that the thesis was untenable. I 
think their objections are excellent but am 
still not convinced the two were not the same man.

============================================

Steve, I have always been puzzled by your
speculation that Damodar was possibly
DK.

There are many points I could cite to show
that your speculation is not a reasonable 
conclusion.

For example, there is a letter written
by Damodar to H.P. Blavatsky. Dated May
9, 1882. This letter was never published
as far as I know until 1908.

Damadar writes to HPB about DK as though
he was another separate person, certainly
not himself.

Part of the letter reads:

==========================================

The description of the young man shows him
to be none other than Jwala-Kula. We told her
to see what he may be doing at the time the experiment 
was being made. She said she cannot go to that place
where he is. She cannot follow him and cannot
find him. I believe he is, perhaps, in the sleep
before his first initiation, and, therefore, she
could not follow him.

================================================

One should read the whole letter but it is
clear that Damodar is not DK. 

See the whole letter in DAMODAR AND THE PIONEERS
OF THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, pp. 201-203. 

This is only one piece of evidence. There are
many other documents, etc. showing that by 
any reasonable interpretation of the evidence
Damodar was not DK.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc