Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tl00074)

According to theos-l@vnet.net:

> From: "K. Zaitzev" <zaitzev@idg.chph.ras.ru>
>
>   Hi, mr. Johnson!

Call me Paul.
>
> Did you really insist that Morya and maharaja of Kashmir are the same person?
> Or mr. Caldwell and other people like him have mispresented your opinion?

A.) No
B.) Yes

The first prototype for Morya presented in The Masters Revealed
is Giuseppe Mazzini, with whom HPB was associated in London in
the 1850s according to some sources, and whom I therefore think
is the M. she met in that city.  Thus part of the story about
Morya seems to resonate with that relationship.  But Ranbir
Singh, Maharaja of Kashmir, is the prototype who receives the
most attention, and corresponds to more tales about Morya than
any other historical figure with whom HPB was associated.  (As
best I have been able to determine.)  However, in TMR I also
mention a Kashmiri trader who had converted to Buddhism, and
traveled frequently between Kashmir and Lhasa, as someone whose
characteristics seem to have fed the personae of M. and K.H.  In
the sequel, Initiates of Theosophical Masters, I mention the Raja
of Wadhwan as another acquaintance some of whose traits appear in
Morya.  Subsequently it was pointed out to me that the Maharaja
of Varanasi, a TS supporter, had "Maurya" in his name; so that is
another Indian ruler who appears to have fed the character.

I would not say that "Morya" and Ranbir Singh are the
same person, because "Morya" is a literary
character.  Rather, I'd say that Morya is based primarily on Ranbir, with
other elements from other historical acquaintances of HPB, and
some elements that are completely fictional.

There are several passages in TMR where I refer to Ranbir as
"being" Morya, Thakar Singh as "being" Koot Hoomi, and so on.
Which means "being the primary inspiration for the character
of..."  I never, to my knowledge, say that Morya *is* Ranbir,
etc., which would reduce a complex situation to an easily refuted
oversimplification.  But that is the position that some readers
have assumed the book to take, and I regret not making the issue
clearer.

Cheers,
Paul