Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01506)

WILL THE REAL MASTERS KUT HUMI AND MORYA PLEASE STAND UP

As one reads the postings on Theos-l, etc., one comes away with the impression
the there are as many flavors of Theosophy as there are Theosophists.  So much
for a science of Theosophy!  Even when it comes to Theosophical history, there
is a multitude of conflicting and contradictory viewpoints.

For example, both Paul J. and Alexis D. pooh-pooh the reliability of much of
what HPB wrote about her Masters Morya and Kut Humi.  But both of them
believe that behind the "disinformation" put out by HPB, there are real
flesh and blood men who correspond in one way or the other with the
Masters Morya and Kut Humi.

Paul J. writes in IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS (p. 6):

"Although much of HPB's portrayal of Morya and Koot Hoomi was designed
to mislead in order to protect their privacy, enough accurate information
was included to make a persuasive case for their identities as these
historical figures."

I assume that Alexis D. would more or less agree with Johnson's statement.

Johnson writes a great deal about the true identities of these two Masters.
He believes that Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia corresponds to Kut Humi and
that Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Kashmir has many correspodences with
Morya.

In fact, Johnson believes that when Henry Olcott, Damodar K. Mavalankar and
William Brown testified that they had met the Master Kut Humi at Lahore, India
in Nov. 1883, they had actually met Thakur Singh.

But in my critique of Johnson's thesis and in our exchange of comments, Johnson
admitted that when Olcott similarly testified that Morya had come on
horseback to
T.S. headquarters in Bombay in July, 1879, this Master on horseback could NOT
be Ranbir Singh, Maharaja of Kashmir.  In fact, Johnson has failed to explain
who this man on horseback was.

Now although Alexis D. hasn't written books on the subject of who the
Masters were,
he has from time to time on Theos-l indicated that he believes that Kuthumi
actually
was the Maharaja of Kashmir and that Morya was Chandragupta das Maurya, the
Maharaja of Benares.

Now Alexis D doesn't specify which Maharaja of Kashmir he is identifying as
Kut Humi.
Is it Ranbir Singh?  But to a third party, it is obvious that either Paul J
or Alexis D are wrong
in their identifications.  Possibly both are wrong!

Now I would ask Alexis D. the following questions:

When Olcott, Brown and Damodar report that they had been visited by Kut Humi
at Lahore,
do you identify that person with the Maharaja of Kashmir?

Also when Olcott reports that Morya came to Bombay on horseback to visit him
and HPB,
do you identify that person on horseback with the Maharaja of Benares?

If you don't identify these Masters (one at Lahore and the other one at
Bombay) with the
respectivie Maharajas, then how do you explain these two visits?

On p. 130 of IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, Johnson mentions Dr. Karen Singh as the
"great-grandson of Ranbir Singh" and says that Dr. Singh "in 1989 became Indian
ambassador to the United States.

I believe that Alexis D. has stated on theos-l that he [Alexis] was good
friends with Dr.
Karen Singh.  I wonder if Alexis's belief that Kut Humi was the Maharaja of
Kashmir
is based (in part) upon some kind of information given him by Dr. Singh?

Hopefully, Alexis' identifications of the Masters M. and K.H.  are based on
something more
substantial than what Paul J. has offered in his three books on the subject.

Let me here state that after doing years of research on HPB's life and the
material
relating to M. and K.H., I am inclined to believe that these two Masters
were real
flesh and blood men---not the ethereal kind of Masters portrayed by
Elizabeth Clare
Prophet.    And, furthermore, I am inclined to believe (based upon the
evidence) that
M. and K.H. also had remarkable psychic powers just like HPB did.  I also
believe
that Morya and Kut Humi were not their real names;  HPB says this in several
places.
But at this point in my research, I cannot identify the historical names of
these
two Masters.

Ever since Paul J. published his first book on the Masters, I have been quite
interested in getting to the bottom of all of this.  All of my critiques of
Johnson's
thesis was done, in the hope that we might get closer to unraveling the
mystery surrounding HPB's two Masters.  Unfortunately, I believe Johnson
is barking up the wrong tree.  (Hint, there are other trees!)

I welcome Alexis' identifications.  Superficially at least, they make more sense
than Johnson's but without more details, these identifications by Alexis remain
speculative (at least to everyone but Alexis!).

Maybe I will write an article or book entitled:

WILL THE REAL KUT HUMI AND MORYA PLEASE STAND UP.  It would also make a
nice TV game show! Can't you see the various "masters" sitting there in
turbans, robes
and beards, being asked questions about themselves!  Does anyone remember that
game show from the 50s?  What was its name?


Food for thought,

Daniel H. Caldwell