Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00565)

Titus's comment about believing, unlike me, that M, KH et all
existed, and JHE's rejoinder, set me thinking.  No, this won't
be any defense of my books, but just consideration of a range
of possibilities.  There's something about that word "exist"
that seems to eliminate all but two possibilities: they did or
they didn't.  Jerry is right that when forced to choose between
one of those two, I'd choose "did."  But a scale of belief is
more appropriate, e.g.:

1. Belief that M., K.H., and all the other Master figures of
Theosophical literature depicted by HPB, CWL and anyone else
writing under TS auspices existed precisely as they were
described in all these writings.
Option 1 has the distinct disadvantage of being *logically*
impossible, due to the great contradictions between, say, HPB
and CWL on the subject.  But that doesn't prevent this option
from being chosen by some people; it may be one of the more popular
options.
2. Belief that HPB and Olcott are always telling the truth about the
Masters, but CWL is fantasizing.
Option 2 is still logically impossible in that there are
internal contradictions in HPB's accounts, but again that
doesn't prevent people from choosing it.  The most popular
option in ULT and Pasadena circles, supplemented in the latter
case with beliefs about Judge, Tingley and Purucker's veracity
on their own contacts.
3. Belief that most of the stories told by HPB and Olcott about
the Masters have a basis in truth, but that there is a large
amount of fictionalization going on; moreover that the Masters
get more imaginary afterwards as CWL, Bailey etc. add to the
fiction.
Option 3 is my own choice and even if my particular nominees
for various Master figures are all wrong, this general thesis
seems most plausible.
4. Belief that most of the stories told by HPB and Olcott about
the Masters are entirely fictional, but that there is some
incidental element of historical truth in some of them.
5. Belief that all the claims about the Masters made in
Theosophical literature by anyone from HPB down are all
fraudulent or at least incorrect.
Option 5 has been the standard approach of outside authors for
decades, although Peter Washington hedges enough that he might
accept option 4.

So, Titus, I wouldn't characterize our difference of
perspective as a difference between *whether or not* the
Masters existed, but rather a difference between how accurate
we think HPB's (et al?) portrayal of them was.  Perhaps that
could be stated as a difference on *how much* M. and K.H. as
portrayed by her really existed.  It's not an all or nothing
choice.

Cheers,
P.