Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00062)

HI Everyone. I have been waiting to reply to this topic for some time, and
have chosen this interesting message to attach my own to, as it at least
contains genuine enquiry. The point about any body of "spiritual" ideas is
translating it into a MOVEMENT or some kind of DOING that is CONSCIOUS and
not just a reaction that turns into its opposite. This is CREATION and it is
meaningful.

Anything we "choose" to believe in or not believe in is based on our
conditioning. Even the details we choose to examine are based on this. The
obvious (but maybe not so obvious to most of us) thing to do is turn the
camera on oneself and discover what is going on. My acquaintance was a
Mormon. He believed Joseph Smith, or whatever his name was, found the Book
of Mormon on tablets of pure gold which he dug up in the ground. To me this
is ridiculous, but, as a genuine starting point, NEITHER point of view is
relevant. The reason for this is, we are going to make a bridge together,
and what we need to know about is not how Joseph Smith founded the Mormon
religion, but the specifics of making a bridge. Think this over. Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Stubbs" <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Precipitation of a Koot Hoomi Letter witnessed by
C.W. Leadbeater


> --- In theos-talk@y..., "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...> wrote:
> > C. W. Leadbeater
> > October 31, 1884
> > London
>
> Thanks for the precipitation stories. The Theosophical sources say
> that some of the letters were precipitated and that most were not.
> Your comments seem to fit in well with those statements.
>
> There is still one challlenge - more difficult than collecting
> preicpitaion stories - which has not been dealt with: how to argue
> from an unbiased perspective that the mahatma letters did contain the
> actual thoughts of the mahatmas and not those of the amanuensis
> chelas who produced them? Unfortunately, precipitation stories,
> however interesting, do not relieve us on this point because even if
> we grant that Blavatsky could produce a letter out of thin air, that
> does not constitute reason to believe the letter she produced did not
> contain her own thoughts rather than someone else's. I am not saying
> the problem cannot be solved, only that the stories do not solve it.
> So suppose someone like Paul Johnson or Brigitte Muehlegger were to
> suddenly profess belief in the mathatmas and precipitation but
> express doubt that the mahatmas wrote the letters, how could one
> answer that difficulty?
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>