Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00106)

Hi Govert,

Thanks for your email below.  I will be answering you in the
near future.  

I see that Anand did not answer this question and if his answer was yes, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence he believes indicates that the Master is a real person.

Daniel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel: "Does Anand, Govert and Daniel believe in Koot Hoomi?"
> 
> Govert: No, I don't, but his existence is to be treated as a very probable hypothesis as many people have witnessed to having met him in the flesh and/or meta-empirically and my theosophical world view has ample space for Mahatmas and the like for they are integral parts of that philosophy. Definitive proof has eluded me so far as I have not had any such experiences, though it is possible I saw him speak in Montana through Elizabeth Clare Prophet and feel his presence if I'm in a more Bhakti mode, though it is possible, as I might soon hear from my fellows here, that I'm deluded. 8^)
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: danielhcaldwell 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 2:42 AM
>   Subject: Theos-World Does Anand, Govert and Daniel believe in Koot Hoomi?
> 
> 
>   Does Anand, Govert and Daniel believe in Koot Hoomi?
> 
>   In September of last year, I wrote to Anand on
>   Theos-Talk starting my posting with the following:
> 
>   -------------------------------------------------
>   Anand,
> 
>   I am going to try to see where the two of us agree and disagree.
> 
>   I assume that both of us believe in the existence of the Master Koot
>   Hoomi. Am I right?
> 
>   But it would appear that our beliefs differ significantly in many
>   other aspects concerning Theosophy.
> 
>   Therefore this posting is Part 1 of a series of postings in which I
>   am going to try to ascertain where the two of us agree and disagree
>   and more importantly I will try to determine what our thinking
>   and reasoning on these issues are.
>   --------------------------------------------------
> 
>   The rest of that posting to Anand can be found at:
> 
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/45971
> 
>   As far as I know, Anand never responded to that posting
>   at least not in any detail. Therefore I did not
>   pursue this line of thinking any further as I had originally hoped
>   to do.
> 
>   So now that Govert has entered the "arena" so to speak,
>   I ask Anand once more and Govert the following:
> 
>   Do the two of you believe in the existence of the Master Koot Hoomi?
> 
>   Do the three of us believe in Koot Hoomi?
> 
>   Richard Hodgson (basing his "findings" on Emma Coulomb's testimony 
>   and his own "research") stated his conclusions as follows:
> 
>   "....Koot Hoomi is a FICTITIOUS personage....[and the] 
>   supposed "astral forms" of the Mahatmas were confederates of Madame 
>   Blavatsky in disguise --- generally the Coulombs....[The] alleged 
>   [occult] phenomena --- some of them in connection with the so-called 
>   Shrine at Adyar --- were ingenious trickeries, carried out by Madame 
>   Blavatsky, with the assistance chiefly of the Coulombs....I must 
>   express my unqualified opinion that NO GENUINE psychical phenomena 
>   WHATEVER will be found among the pseudo-mysteries of the Russian lady 
>   alias Koot Hoomi Lal Sing alias Mahatma Morya alias Madame Blavatsky."
>   caps added.
> 
>   Do the two of you agree with Hodgson that Koot Hoomi is a fictitious, 
>   imaginary, non-existent person simply made up by H.P. Blavatsky as 
>   the "evidence" presented by both Emma Coulomb and Richard Hodgson 
>   would lead one to conclude???
> 
>   And if you do not agree with Hodgson's conclusion and believe that 
>   Koot Hoomi is a real person, then what SPECIFIC evidence and 
>   reasoning convinces you of Koot Hoomi's existence?
> 
>   I am trying to see if at least on this one point, the three of us can 
>   agree on something and I would like to sincerely know your views and 
>   as I said what convinces you that you conclusion is correct.
> 
>   Later I will try to further the discussion by following up on some of 
>   the material about Mr. Sinnett's belief in Master KH as given in the 
>   above posting that I wrote to Anand back in September.
> 
>   Daniel
>   http://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>