Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00711)

I'm beginning Isis Unveiled with no expectation that it will be pure, 
undistorted or free of engarblement. Not even close. But apart from 
her and Steiner, there don't seem to be any serious clairvoyant 
options out there. So it goes, somebody said. Perhaps you consider 
the writings with Blavatsky's name on them to be the reliable compass 
by which to judge which theosophy, which occultism is real. Fine with 
me, I'm not denigrating that, it just alters the starting point from 
which to address the question of, what harm does the distortion 
of "occult" truth do? How is it different from our more ordinary 
falsifications ("You'll see it when you believe it" going on all day 
long) and what are the real consequences of it? For instance, there's 
the idea that false beliefs in the field of occultism actually 
obscure the reality of the situation, making it more difficult to 
see what's going on. I'm inclined to swallow that one; maybe it's a 
hideous lie. Maybe we should all just say "maybe" a lot, until the 
psychospiritual weather clears up.