Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00066)

Hallo Paul and all of you,

My views are:

Yes.
The truth about it all seems on one level to be floating along the levels of
Floodlights and Science.
On another level we are talking about reading the Akasha or the non-physical
libraries.

The first level is pictured by the following little story.
I admit, that it is maybe not good enough as what you would call a required
refutation.
Nevertheless to some of us it is quite sufficient.

Floodlights and Science

There is this analogy about a man who had fleas in his bed.
He first put out the light, so that the insects could not see to
bite. This man was making assumptions which were logical
enough, but which did not work since he did not know how
to structure his experience. When someone told him that
fleas could bite in the dark, he still couldn't learn. He installed
floodlights to blind the fleas. This seemes to work, wonder of
wonders; but presently he found that he could feel them biting
again.
How did the floodlights 'work'? The fact is, of course, that
the light so dazzled - him, that his attention was drawn from the
fleas, giving him the impression that they were not biting him
any longer. When he got used to the brightness, he begab to feel
the fleas again.
He still feels, we are told, that the success lies somewhere along
the road of floodlights. And he prizes his few brief hours of
freedom from bites.

My question is now if you are only collection physical scholary
"refutations",
so to make the true "fleas" go away ?

On the other level the Akasha.
We talk about time, place and people.
We talk about that one shall know people on their fruits.
We also talk about other issues. Some of them without form and oridnary
linear thought-patterns.

*******

Allright.
First refutation: Some books (and therefore also websites) act as deliberate
spiritual 'decoys'. (taken from Idries Shah "Learning how to learn".)
Is that not enough ?
I have more...



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:08 PM
Subject: Theos-World Clearly false claims, invalid sources, etc.


> Dear Sufilight,
>
> You wrote:
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > I just came across the following.
> > I think the following - clearly false claims
>
> Clearly? That's one of those words like `obvious' and `self-
> evident' that people use as if they were objective perceptions but
> often/usually are really descriptive of subjective judgments.
>
> - about Idries Shah shows all of us, why Wikipedia is not a valid
> tool to use.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idries_Shah
> >
> I've read all of Shah's works and met his most eminent critic James
> Moore. The fact that the article shows `clearly' *to you* that
> Wikipedia is "not a valid" tool hardly implies that "all of us" are
> convinced by *your* certainty and clarity that Shah was not an
> impostor.
>
> > If Theosophy should be examined by the same superficial method -
> it wouldn't look good.
> >
> > Madame Blavatsky can be compared here:
> > http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Blavatsky
> >
> > I think you have gotten the culturally colored picture by now.
> >
> One thing I notice among religious believers as well as political
> partisans, but never cease to be amazed by it. Somehow, people
> imagine that calling a book or article or author "culturally
> colored" or "biased" etc. refutes their facts and interpretations
> thereof. But there are no books, authors, or articles which are
> *not* culturally colored, biased, etc. So it would serve just as
> well as a one-size-fits-all refutation if we were to say "this was
> written by a human being."
>
> It would be interesting to see a correction of any of the facts
> about Shah presented in the article. No matter how biased the
> source and how culturally colored, the facts remain and it would be
> preferable (to me at least) to see the facts corrected and explained
> rather than see the source smeared without any evidence.
>
> (Lest you assume otherwise, I actually like many of Shah's books.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>