Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00050)

Dear Mr. Leon:

You wrote:
 

> How can we be sure that those 6,000 so called witnesses
> actually experienced what a "reporter" states they did?  How can
> we be sure
> that the so called, respectable (because, well known, or an accepted
> politician), is telling the truth?  Or, that he was not experiencing
> a self
> generated delusion?  How can we be sure that the 6,000 people
> weren't mass
> hypnotized, as many crowds have been who gave reports of seeing a fakir
> disappear at the top of his rope -- as has happened innumerable times
> in
> India?
There is a photograph!  So, hypnotism is out of a serious possibility. 
Of course, we must ask if the photo itself is a trick.  But, what
about the testimonies guiven to a reporter years after, that Todd sent
us in a previous e-mail?

Do they also lie?  Hard to believe that there is like a complot of years made to maintain a lie, involucrating so many differente people ... the photografer, the reporter that went to Nairobi after years, the two different eyewitnesses.

The topic of this discussion may certainly provoke scepticism.  That is also my case.

But I think that scepticism is a good tool for investigation, just if we don´t loose its place.

If we were sceptic at all, would we be seriosuly interested in esoterism?  Would we be seriously interested in reading, for example, The Mahatma Letters? Who can guive enough proofs of the existence and identity of the so called Masters of the White Broterhood, if the matter were discussed in a court?

If we were sceptical at all, seriosusly, (as, by the way, Krishnamurti dangerously and innocently recommended for his non-method), wouldn´t we live in the jail of Descartes´solipsism?

So, will we have to believe in Creme´s claims?  I don´t mean that.  Let´s investigate that patiently, that´s all.  If that were true, it would be tremendous to the world.  Would that make us wise?.  The only conffirmation of the claim, of corse, not.  But, woudn´t that put us in the Way of a Master?  Is that not important?

Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven Root Races?  Because HPB thaught that?  No.  Because she said she learned it from the Masters.  And, so, we consider seriously this theory, against ALL actual reputated antrophology and archeology .  Certainly, the existence of man since 300,000 years or more, and even much, much, much before also in the previous Rond, is a dream of non sense from the scientific point of view.

So, will we say, if we want to be honest with our positions, that finding a Masters is not important, very important ... and even more?

Krishnamurti would say no, of course.  But he could say that after he received a instruction.  And if we take seriously his words, don´t we see that they leave us to the Descartes´solipsism?  (Remember also Govert´s paper).  But if we also think that K´s non method leave us to freedom ... is it not also a prejudice, a learned idea, the only one that can make us follow the non-method?

Because if we really want to put away our mental ideas, as Krishnamurti emphatically and ingenually suggests (instead of understanding that ideas, a methaphysic, may be, for mental creatures as we are now, a instrumental and valuable, though transitorius tool), wouldn´t we be in the non-sense of existence experimented by Sartre?

We don´t know personally the so called Masters (Koot Houmi, and others), but we feel that HPB´s are serious ideas to be considered.  How much more important will be for us, then, to find, to know, a Master!

So, Leon, I think that this topic of discussion IS important.

DAVID C.