Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00383)

June 16th 1998

Dear Annette:

I would agree with you that any "proof" is only proof to the
person who experiences the event.  To all those whom he tells
about it -- it is "hear-say" and they, if skeptical may call it
delusional, fancy, dreaming, etc., etc.,

However if they repeat the experiment and get the same results,
then it enters the area of observed facts, and repeatable
evidence.

Unfortunately, in dealing with visions, chanellling, trance
experiences, automatic writing, messages, apportations, and a
thousand other aspects of the relations of the "spiritual," and
the "psychic" world with the physical world, there is apparently
no repeat in the scientific scene of duplication on demand.

According to most of them a duplication under exact "test"
conditions is required.  It should have no regard for the
subject, object or observer and experimenter taken as "persons."
and yet, in recent years the participation and influence of the
experimenter and observers has had to be taken into account, as
variables show up depending on the mood of those involved.  So
mood becomes a recognizable factor.  [  "Mood" is a good
catch-all word for the indefinable.  And yet it recognizes a
"something" non-physical that is also present. ]

Now, if we set to work and accumulated in various categories all
the current testimony in books and articles, the information that
so far has been made available in books and magazines for the
past hundred years, we might get some attention.  Some come from
Professors, who dare to investigate this delicate area, and some
evidence is from  ordinary people.  But, what I mean is:  Can we
present enough in a concentrated mass so that the attention of
the serious inquirer is held.  How do we go about showing that
there is more than "moonshine" present ?   What could we present
?

I would say that the overwhelming testimony to there "being
something there," which is so far inexplicable to our kind of
instrumentation or "test investigation" is a fact.

So what can we do about the Scientists ?  Nothing.  But we ought
to put our facts in good order, so that the reading and thinking
public can find some well arranged and consecutive evidence they
can refer to with confidence.  Perhaps eventually the Academic
world when it is a loose ends will deign to work on what we have
brought together.  As a matter of observation HPB worked with the
"spiritualists" before the starting of the T S.  ISIS UNVEILED
brought a mass of facts that were in classical literature, and in
the current newspapers together.  She then advanced the
Theosophical theories about the "astral," "psychic," and
"Spiritual planes."  With the help of THE COLLECTED WORKS
BLAVATSKY, it is relatively easy to trace developments
thereafter.

In connection with this we ought to be able to present a theory,
an hypothesis concerning the reason for such phenomena as occur.
Also a reason why some people are either more or less sensitive
to the "spiritual," and "psychic" than others, and why some are
entirely insensitive, and some quite negative.

Reviewing what Theosophy has to say on the subject and starting
with the articles first written by HPB :  "The Eddy
Manifestations"
[ A MODERN PANARION p. 1;  Collected Works Blavatsky
(CWB) Vol. 1, p. 30 we find that she systematically presented
facts about the psychic and the astral planes and their relations
through sensitives to this our physical plane of gross
cognitions.

For a quick, but comprehensive review, we might look at HPB's KEY
TO THEOSOPHY (using the index under Astral, Psychic, Plane ) or
THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY by Wm. Q. Judge reading the chapters 5
(Body and Astral Body), 6 (Kama-Desire), 12 (Kama-Loka), 16
(Psychic Laws, Forces and Phenomena) and 17 ( Psychic Phenomena
and Spiritualism).

That would give an over-view of what Theosophy offers, and it
could form the base for a systematic analysis of the data
accumulated in the past 125 years or so.

The problem is of credibility.  It does not really matter if the
Academic world pays attention to us, but it is annoying to find
that doubt, prejudice and skepticism (instead of spirit of
investigation) prevails and has spread to the average man, who
depends largely  on scientific pronouncements for his store of
usable "facts."  His "authorities" are letting him down by their
prejudice and ignorance in this area.

But even when there is such a mass of data (reviewing what I have
seen of it, it is still very unorganized) there is resistance
from the great body of scientists (with some exceptions of
course), because many of their theories and ideas would have to
be changed if, in what Theosophy offers, is found to be accuracy
and validity.

The same could be said of the views maintained by many of the
"splinter" groups that have originated in or out of Theosophical
differences of opinion down the years, and in the vast field of
psychic and spiritualistic investigators, practitioners, writers,
etc... many of whom  operate on a "for profit" basis, where one
"produces or refunds."  This pressure is that which generates
fraudulent phenomena.  And the "bad name" of the occult, and the
esoteric, as well as the psychic and the spiritual grows.

One good thing that can be said for reports of spiritual and
psychic manifestations these days, is that no one's life is
automatically threatened by church or state for expressing them.
( At least in most areas at present.)

I am sure that much more could be added to these observations.
thank you for what you have said.

    Dallas

> Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 6:18 PM
> From: "Annette Rivington" <libidium@globalserve.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: Dr. Bain and "Real Evidence"

>OK, I can say something here.......
>Here you guys go again getting all edgy over this "appearance or
not of
>Adepts, Masters", entities thing.
>I mean, this is my point about quoting others.
>Just supposing HPB wrote at a time when it wasn't the done thing
to meet
>in someone's living room and talk to someone from another plane
(like it
>was done by the majority of the middle and upper classes in her
time)?
>Or, suppose HPB was a peasant who saw entities and heard voices
all the
>time and was already labelled as "the harmless village idiot".
>With her savvy she would have documented and spread the ideas
but would
>have left out the "visitation" bit and then this would never
have become
>such an issue!  The truth is the truth by any messanger!
                SNIP