Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00346)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:59 AM
Subject: Theos-World Johnson on the Ooton Liatto Case and the Morya in
Bombay Case


> CASE A: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON
> LIATTO IN NEW YORK CITY
<edited version> We took cigars and chatted
for a while... I ran
downstairs---rushed into Madams parlour---
and---there sat these same two identical
men smoking with her and chatting....I said
nothing...

> CASE B: MORYA COMES ON HORSEBACK TO BOMBAY IN JULY, 1879 TO VISIT
> OLCOTT
<editied version> [Morya] came to
scold me roundly for something I had done...
H.P.B. was also to blame, ... She came over at once with a rush, and seeing
him dropped to her knees and paid him reverence.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Concerning Case A, Paul Johnson was willing to write in THE MASTERS
> REVEALED:
>
> ". . . there is little doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in
> New York...."
>
> Yet concerning Case B, Johnson has NOT been willing to also write:
>
> ". . . there is little doubt that a real adept visited Olcott in
> Bombay...."
>
> Why the differing assessment by Johnson? This goes to the heart of
> the matter, IMO.

"There is little doubt" is a statement of belief that falls short of
complete knowledge. It is the equivalent of the statement "there is much
belief" for evidentiary purposes. "There is little doubt" would be 
Johnson's personal
conclusion given (1) the evidence available to him, (2) his intuitive sense
of rightness concerning the two stories including the context of each, and
(3) his personal inclination to study or not study the issue further. You 
only have
influence over part (1) in that you can make more evidence available
although it is justifiably unlikely that he is still reading any of your
posts. Parts (2) & (3) are beyond your control. Is it theosophically 
sound to attempt to control the conclusions of another?


> To my understanding, IF it is valid in Case A to write:
>
> ". . . there is little doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in
> New York...."
>
> then it is equally valid concerning Case B to comment:
>
> ". . . there is little doubt that a real adept visited Olcott in
> Bombay...."
>
> Apparently Johnson tried to make some fundamental differences between
> the two cases (A and B) in one of his replies to some of my
> criticisms, but as I have shown in my essay at:
>
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonparanormal3.htm
>
> his arguments are fallacious and do not hold up under careful
> scrutiny.
>
> Is this the way other readers see it?
It is not the way I see it. As I see it, you are trying to force a square
peg into a round hole. You are ignoring the only undeniable fact in the
whole situation and that is that even if there were "little doubt" about
both cases, and you could somehow make Paul say those words, there would
still be doubt. The known universe does not expand with the words "there is
little doubt."


Bill
> Daniel
> http://blavatskystudycenter.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus System
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 10/12/2004