Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01543)

At 03:48 PM 5/30/96 -0400, you wrote:

>"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.

A.D. comments: With that particular statement I agree entirely.
>
>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.

A.D. Comments: Here I think that Paul was misled by the conflicting mass of
information. In fact I think everyone is. There are a number of Indian
Adepts that were very active during this period. Certainly the Maharajahs of
Kashmir and Benares were among them as was Thakar singh Sandhanwalia.
Probably the mistake we all of us make is to try to equate them with the "M"
figure and the "K.H." figure who I have always felt were not anything but
"blinds" to protect the real Adepts. Now, among the names of Ranbir Singh,
Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir were the Tibetan appelation of Kuthumi
(pronounced Koot Hoomi)which was essentially an honorific, and Lal, it is
quite usual for Royalty to have many names. Therefore it cannot be simply
coincidence that we find the name of Kuthumi Ranbir Lal singh, the Kashmiri.
Now I know that at least CWL refers to him as a "Brahmin" but while
unlikely, that's not entirely impossible though most Maharajahs are of the
Kshatryia Caste. However I have a very good friend who is both a Maharajah
and a Brahmin, though he was from Southern India. I think the "Brahmin"
appelation to be part of the "blind".
>
>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.

A.D.comments: Dan, I am in the midst of so doing. It's tentatively titled
The Keltic-Indoaryan Link.
>
>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?

A.D.: I do.
>
>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?

A.D.: Oh very definitely, The Maharajah of Benares was a noted horseman and
a very military figure (sound familiar?). You know that Chandragupta Das
Maurya (pronounced Morya) was the direct descendant of King Asoka, and a
Rajput of Rajputs. The "Master M" is identified sever al times as the
reincarnation of King Asoka, and is always referred to as a Rajput. The fact
that there is so much of the Chandragupta dynasty in the basic T.S. is a
pretty strong indication, don't you think?
>
>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?

A.D. It's Karan Singh (or was, he's passed on). I was introduced to him by a
close associate of Sri Aurobindo, who said we had much in common. My belief
that his Grandfather was one of the Prime Movers in the Theosophical society
was indeed based upon our conversations, but I think you can understand that
the exact nature of those conversations is in the category of "privileged
conversation". I will only say this, I am very secure in my belief that The
Maharajah Kuthumi Ranbir Lal singh was one of the founders of the
theosophical society.
>
>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.

I think that except for a few very minor points (such as his identification
of Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia) Paul's research and intuition were excellent.
He missed a couple, and got a couple "turned around" but on the whole his
book identifies the actual adepts better than most. He's completely missed
the European Adepts but that doesn't seem to have been his area of inquiry.
>
>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.

A.D. comments: Dan you are absolutely right but please add CWL to Elisabeth
Clair Prophet. She would be absolutely voiceless without CWL to draw upon
for inspiration.

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.

A.D. comments: In this Dan, you are 100% correct. All  the
adeptii/illuminatii. mahatmas do, it "goes with the territory", and of
course, as you know I have my own candidates for their "real names".

>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!).

A.D. comments: That's quite true, and while for me, personally, it is
anything but speculative, nevertheless, for a long time now, it has been
believed best that "speculative" is the way it should remain for the general
public (Theosophists included). But now, the whole subject has gotten in
such a state of disrepute that it is deemed necessary to make an effort to
improve the situation, to make it more positive from the point of view of
human societal evolution.
>
>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
>
>
Honest questions, fairly put, deserve honest answers. I hope these suffice.

alexis d.
>
>
>