Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00101)

Hallo Paul and all of you,

My views are:

1. I am not accusing you of anything. I was just asking a question.
Please Paul I do care...

2. But, what if Idries Shah had the same intentions with his books - ie.
that they were spiritual decoys - at least in part ?
We won't know that, because he didn't tell us did he ?

3. As for my second refutation on the - on a theosophical level - "clearly
false" claims.
I write it one more time because you somehow didn't relate to it in your
answers:
What good does it do to contrast a page by Arvan Harvat, for
example on the lataif, that states "there is no unanimity regarding
the lataif" (its patterns/ordering) in authentic sources but then on
another dismisses Idries Shah's info on the subject to be "the fictions of
Idries Shah"?
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Islamic_esotericism/Sufism/lataif.html (Arvan
Harvat)
Do you disagree on this ?

4. There is more...
(I try to keep the mails short.)

Another issue is, that Idries Shah was often against the scholars of our
time,
because they - as he said - were ignorant and not compassionate like the
Sufis.
The fact remians, that Idries Shah have now only been dead for about 7
years.
And now - today - only a few years after his death he get dragged down with
smear.
When he lived they didn't dare to accuse him.
A possible reason is that some of the scholars - inwardly knew he was right.
Namely, that they were what he called them: merely Scholars.
Which to him was the same as being Ignorant.
For sure Idries Shah created some enemies among the scholars when he lived.
His writings tells a clear tale about that.
And because of that some of them now take revenge because he is physically
dead. I say this even when some of them would call it by another name.
Do you also disagree on that ?


The fact is, that science today work by the theories similar to the man I
mentioned here in a recent email on Floodlights and Science.
To base ones conclusions about evidence only using about 10 percent of the
brain cannot be valid scientific evidence.
You aught for sure to take spiritual dimensions into account if you really
want to be scientific. That was why Blavatsky and other
used the Akasha - the non-physical library to read the truth about physical
events from.
Not true ?


Emails are designs, which can be eyeopeners to the spiritual Wisdom and
Truth behind the curtains.
This email is such a design.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:00 PM
Subject: Theos-World Two unanswered questions from Sufilight


> Sufilight asked:
> > 1. My question is now if you are only collection physical scholary
> > "refutations", so to make the true "fleas" go away ?
> >
> >> *******
> >
> > Allright.
> > First refutation: Some books (and therefore also websites) act as
> deliberate
> > spiritual 'decoys'. (taken from Idries Shah "Learning how to
> learn".)
> > 2. Is that not enough ?
>
> 1. I'm not collecting anything except documents from northeastern NC
> in search of family history. That answers for "now" in the sense of
> this entire decade; before that my scholarly preoccupation from 1995-
> 99 was the Edgar Cayce readings. No one has ever accused me of being
> a skeptical debunker in the context of that book, or of being someone
> who wanted to make the true *anything* go away. If anything I erred
> on the side of credulity, probably.
>
> 2. No, that just adds attribution of evil motive to your assertion
> that the statements about Shah are "clearly false." Rather than
> arguing about the intentions of various authors I would be interested
> in actual discussion of evidence about Shah's imposture. But it
> appears we won't have that, so on to another topic.
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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/
>
>