Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00615)

> PART III
> > > 
>      Mr. Caldwell speculates that I attempt to cast doubt on
> the testimony of S.R. Ramaswamier concerning his encounter with
> Morya solely because this conflicts with my hypothesis about
> Ranbir Singh.  This is quite untrue, since Ramaswamier could
> have met *someone* posing as Morya even if the primary
> prototype for the Mahatma was miles away.  The primary reason
> for considering the testimony fraudulent is internal, in the
> amazingly sophisticated and elaborate article allegedly written
> by Ramaswamier to describe it.  His own son concluded that the
> story involved deception somehow.  Mr. Caldwell makes a
> very dubious reading of the Mahatma letters to Ramaswamier, for
> example the one in which Morya writes "Every one must know he
> is my chela, and that he has seen me in Sikkim..." which to him
> means that Ramaswamier in fact believed in Morya's existence
> *and* that he had met him in Sikkim.  The gist of my argument
> in *Initiates of Theosophical Masters* is that Ramaswamier
> indeed believed in the reality of Morya, and was participating
> in a fraud designed to simultaneously prove his existence and
> mislead the public about his location.  The letter in question
> indicates that the journey had a specific propaganda purpose designed in
> advance.  Caldwell asks "Does it make any sense that
> Ramaswamier would be receiving Mahatmic letters with such
> advice [as to `remember I am with you'] when (according to
> Johnson) Ramaswamier knew that he had himself lied about his
> encounter with Morya in Sikkim?"  Indeed it does make sense, in
> light of the evidence that Ramaswamier, Damodar, Pillai, Babaji
> and Mohini all believed in (or indeed knew of) the reality of
> the Mahatmas, wanted to help prove it, and were willing to use
> deception in order to mislead the public.  I can only ask
> readers to read the relevant portions of *Initiates* in order
> to make their own evaluations.
>      Mr. Caldwell asks "why isn't Johnson willing to accuse
> Olcott... of being a liar and HPB's confederate, too?"  The
> answer is that of course I am, as should be obvious.  It
> escapes me how Mr. Caldwell can in one section denounce me for
> suspecting Olcott of forging a Mahatma letter to Sinnett, and
> in a subsequent section blame me for not suspecting Olcott of
> being a liar and confederate.  But he seems to mean something
> quite different by "liar" than I do.  Liars are not necessarily
> people who never tell the truth, as some skeptical writers
> about HPB seem to assume.  They may lie for strategic reasons,
> and according to my study of the evidence both HPB and Olcott
> had abundant reasons for lying about the Masters.  The
> challenge for the historical researcher who lives in a world of
> myriad shades of grey rather than simplistic black and white is
> to determine when people are lying and when they are telling
> the truth, and why.  Olcott did not lie all the time, and
> wanted to convey to the world his genuine conviction of the
> reality of the Masters.  But he sometimes was obliged to lie in
> order to protect their privacy, just as HPB was.  My
> conclusion about truthtelling and lying by Olcott is the same
> as about HPB; both wanted to tell as much of the truth about
> the Masters as they could without risking their exposure to the
> public.
>      Finally, the main factor which makes the Ramaswamier
> testimony and the rest of the Sikkim story less credible than
> Olcott's and HPB's tales of meeting the Masters in the Punjab
> and Kashmir is contextual.  There is abundant historical
> evidence of the Founders' contacts in northwest India, as well
> as HPB's literary familiarity with Hinduism and Sikhism at the
> time the Mahatma letters were written.  What comparable
> evidence is there from this period concerning contacts with
> Tibetan Buddhism?  HPB's writings do not demonstrate any
> persuasive familiarity with Tibetan Buddhism until some years
> later.  Several scholars in the field have commented on the
> entirely unconvincing nature of the claims in the Mahatma
> letters regarding Tibet.  In *Initiates* I cite the conclusions
> of Alexandra David-Neel on this subject; as a leading scholar
> of Tibetan Buddhism and a former Theosophist her testimony is
> particularly relevant.
> > >