Steve & Bart on the Masters of H.P.B.
Jun 20, 2004 11:27 AM
by Daniel H. Caldwell
Steve Richards once wrote:
". . . the only proof we can have of the masters'
historical existence is testimony from a qualified
witness, and we have that from Olcott. . . . Olcott's
testimony is sufficient in my judgment to establish
their corporeal existence as legal persons. . . .
I cannot agree with anyone that they were fictions,
fantasies, imagined beings, trance personalities,
or any such thing as that unless the Olcott evidence
can be satisfactorily disposed of. I raised that
question some time ago, and no one has ever addressed
it, so for that reason I remain stubbornly convinced
that the mahatmas were real men as they were claimed
In light of Steve's recent statements on Theos-Talk, does
he now retract the above statement?
And I wonder if Bart's opinion was always the very
opposite of what Steve expresses above.
Compare all of the above with K. Paul Johnson's
assessment of one of Olcott's encounters with the Masters:
Johnson at least at one time believed:
"there is little doubt that two real adepts visited
Olcott in New York."
And note that this encounter Johnson gives
him opinion on has paranormal features to it.
Now take Olcott's experience of meeting the
Mahatma Morya in New York City:
The time came when I was blessed with a visit from one of these
Mahatmas in my own room at New York - a visit from him, not in the
physical body, but in the "double," or Mayavi-rupa. When I asked him
to leave me some tangible evidence that I had not been the dupe of a
vision, but that he had indeed been there, he removed from his head
the puggri [turban] he wore, and giving it to me, vanished from my
sight. That cloth I have still, and in one corner is marked in thread
the cipher or signature he always attaches to the notes he writes to
myself and others.
Based on Steve's previous statement, I assume at one
point in time he probably accepted the reality of this
I also assume that Bart would look for NORMAL EXPLANATIONS.
Maybe he assumes a person can't vanish, that astral
bodies don't exist or can't materialise and certainly
the turban didn't materialise out of "nothing."
Yep, something is wrong with Olcott's account. He is
lying or he must have been somehow tricked.
The turban left by the Master is quite physical and has
If the turnban had not been left, a skeptical
minded person might hypothesize that Olcott simply
imagined or hallucinated the encounter but
with the evidence of the physical turban, one must
look for some other possible explanation.
I look with interest to see if Steve will
step up to the podium and disavow his previous
statement about Olcott or stand by it.
I also look forward to finding out more
about Bart's view about these encounters with
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application