Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00304)

Hi Brigitte and all of you,

A view:
An interesting email yuu make there Brigitte.
Theosophy today as a movement is not what it was year 1891, and year 1929, and year 2000.Theosophy as a movement has a lot of branches. Theosophy as a teaching - "theosophy" - is the teaching of all ages. It is the teaching, and not the movement at year 1891, 1929, 2000 with or without faulths, which is important. It is the present action by the - always so clever reader.
According to me Blavatsky could read in the non-physical light.

Brigitte wrote:
"I think Sufilight might think different of that, he is thinking in 
lightyears, and he is a firm believer in Indries Shah, the one who 
was able to con poor J.G. Bennet."

Answer: 
I am NOT a firm believer of Idries Shah (I guess Indries Shah is Idries Shah - Brigitte). That is one more LIE Brigitte. I think it is NOT the first time, I have had to tell you, that you LIE. Please stop comming with these fake remarks. 

A view: I am firmly INTERSTED in studying/communicating as a hypotesis the wisdom teachings of all ages. Its name is theosophy, wisdom-religion, sufi teaching (tasawwuf in its truest sense), esoteric teachings and other names - when talking about the true and real core wisdom versions of these. But to be merged in - ParaBrahman - God as - Neti, Neti (not this, not that) is my life and message.
Now that is settled - so i hope for no more bad comments on my views on this and that.

A comment on Bennet:
The question is who is/was the 'con' - Bennet, Idries Shah or James Moore ? 
The article by James Moore is clearly biased. James Moore is/was a follower of Gurdjieff - and therefore not exactly the one to follow.
I post the mentioned article here temporaily here for study purpose only. It will be removed within a very few days: http://home1.stofanet.dk/global-teosophy/Idries%20Shah%20exposed%20-%20answer%20no.htm (If anyone is against this, please let me know.) Now everone can see the biased - but interesting - article - which James Moore is documenting it very well.



from
Sufiligt with a lot of - firm words...and the like






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bri_mue" <bri_mue@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 5:31 PM
Subject: Theos-World "Blavatsky was lying ."


> The implication is that Blavatsky was lying when she says she 
> saw pages of books in the "astral light." However, suppose that
> she was one of those rare people who has the gift of eidetic imagery 
> and photographic memory. Suppose furthermore that having read those 
> 100 books she had no conscious recollection of much of their content. 
> Suppose also that her unconscious mind stored photographic images of 
> much of this material and was able to present it to consciousness in 
> the form of "visions" in the "astral light." In that case, it is
> reasonable to assume that she was describing her experience 
> accurately and that the experience could be better explained in 
> psychological terms than in terms of miracles. According to the law 
> of parsimony, that would seemingly be more reasonable than the fraud
> hypothesis of her enemies, or the "astral light" hypothesis of her 
> worshippers, This explanation allows Blavatsky to be right inasmuch 
> as her description of her experience goes, and ditto with
> Coleman, since what he said can be easily checked and found to be 
> true. It would be "paranormal" in the sense that not just anyone can 
> do it, but it would not be "paranormal" in the sense that Daniel 
> Caldwell uses the word, to describe something which is miraculous
> and outside the range of human potential.
> 
> The polarity here is the same as with the Ootan Liatto story. Some 
> insist that we have to find some "miraculous" explanation for it, and 
> others insist that Olcott was lying. A better approach seems to me
> to be to totally accept the statements of these people regarding what 
> they experienced, and ask what it means. We allow ourselves in this 
> case to question their INTERPRETATION of what they experienced, but we
> do not question their truthfulness. We therefore eliminate one 
> hypothesis (i.e., that they are lying in certain cases when it serves 
> our purpose to say they were lying and not in other cases) and the 
> argument becomes more parsimonious.
> 
> As for the recent comment someone posted that the truth is likely to 
> turn newcomers away, I think that is not a problem. There are at most 
> a few thousand Theosophists in a world with some five or six billion
> people in it, so there is no army of newcomers to turn away. Besides, 
> if Theosophy can only be promoted by concealing the truth, it is not 
> worth saving."
> 
> I think Sufilight might think different of that, he is thinking in 
> lightyears, and he is a firm believer in Indries Shah, the one who 
> was able to con poor J.G. Bennet.
> Bri.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]