Published by Blavatsky Study Center


Chart Showing Interpretations of
Some of Henry S. Olcott's Encounters with the Masters

Daniel H. Caldwell


The chart below tries to compare Steve Stubbs' interpretation or view of  Olcott's encounters with the Masters with the views of K. Paul Johnson, Brigitte Muehlegger and Daniel Caldwell

Click on the individual cases in the first column on the chart to see the actual testimony of Olcott. 

Click below on the links titled "real corporeal men", "two real adepts" and "real visitors, 'adepts' " for extracts of what Stubbs, Johnson and Muehlegger have written relevant to Olcott's encounters.

I have added several question marks to Johnson's and Muehlegger's columns since I'm unsure exactly what their specific explanation for some of the cases would be.

See also my comments following the chart.

Olcott's encounters
with the Masters
Steve Stubbs'
interpretation
K. Paul Johnson's
interpretation
Brigitte Muehlegger's
interpretation
Daniel Caldwell's
interpretation
Case A  See also 4 step chart. real corporeal men "two real adepts" real visitors, "adepts" real physical men
Case B  See also 4 step chart. real corporeal man ? ? real physical man
Case C  See also 4 step chart. real corporeal man real physical man? ? real physical man
Case D  See also 4 step chart. real corporeal man real physical man ? real physical man
Case E  See also 4 step chart. real corporeal man ? ? real physical man
Case F See also 4 step chart. real corporeal man ? ? real physical man
Case G  See also 4 step chart. real corporeal man real physical man ? real physical man

I hope that a few of us will try to explore the thinking and reasoning behind the various interpretations of Olcott's encounters with the Masters.

I believe each of us can learn a great deal from looking at the actual thinking and reasoning behind each view. Each of us might learn something new or at least gain a different perspective on the subject matter by trying to understand the various views.

I have no doubt that Stubbs, Johnson and Mühlegger and I have been using what I call "The Four Step Process of Discovery". See:
http://blavatskyarchives.com/history1.htm
http://blavatskyarchives.com/history2.htm
http://blavatskyarchives.com/history3.htm
http://blavatskyarchives.com/history4.htm
http://blavatskyarchives.com/history5.htm

Yet if some of our conclusions differ, then why?

It is really not important whether the "view" or "interpretation" is Johnson's or Stubbs' or Mühlegger's or mine. Then what is important? I would suggest that our discussion should center on the reasonableness, the coherency, etc. of the various explanations or views.

Also what kind of evidence might "prove" or at least tip the balance in favor of one "view" over another? Also what evidence is not being considered in Explanation A or Interpretation B or View C? etc.

Some of the suggestions above might lead us to the real heart of the subject matter instead of being sidetracked into the ad hominem arguments, etc. that often plague our discussions.

See related material at:

• Henry S. Olcott's Testimony:  Nine Accounts of Meeting Masters and Adepts

• "I view M. as a composite character...."

• A Closer Look at Some of K. Paul Johnson's Arguments Concerning H.S. Olcott's Testimony about the Masters