Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00056)

ernesto 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.

	There is a photo of a man in a crowd. That is all. There is an auto
insurance company which uses that kind of evidence in its ads as a joke.
Also, I have not seen an iota of evidence that the crowd all saw him
(what was the crowd there for, in the first place?) or that they thought
that he was anything other than another face in the crowd.

> 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.

	Depends on how much they were paid, or how gullible they were. Look at
all the people Uri Geller had fooled.

> 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?

	What does one have to do with the other? The Mahatmas themselves said
that it was up to us to judge the rightness and wrongness of what they
wrote, and we were not to take what they said as true based on faith.

> If we were sceptical at all, seriosusly, (as, by the way, Krishnamurti
> dangerously and innocently recommended for his non-method), wouldnīt
> we live in the jail of Descartesīsolipsism?

	Nope.
 
> 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.  

	Not me. And if that is true for you, you are going against what the
Mahatmas themselves said.

> 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.

	Possibly. Or perhaps we are misinterpreting Blavatsky, the scientific
evidence, or both.

> 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?

	That's pretty much the size of it.

> 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),
> wouldnīt we be in the non-sense of existence experimented by Sartre?

	He also told us to put away our feelings first. If one tries to abandon
the Budhi Manas without abandoning the Kama Manas, then one reverts back
to 4th Root Race technology. Nothing terribly wrong with that, except
that it's a case of been there, done that; evolutionarily speaking, a
dead end.

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

	Not terribly.

	Bart Lidofsky

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.