Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00623)

Ali Hassan wrote:
> Excellent points. However, your own insistence that she was a con(jurer) 
> artist sort of negates that point, no? ( Unless you're just playing devil's 
> advocate without a presupposition) There are some qualities that just don't 
> mesh. Such as a 'great teacher' stooping to falsified phenomena ( data).
> Anathema in scientific circles.
It is my contention that she had a real message to give, and used 
phenomena to attract attention, at least some of which i believe was 
faked. In addition, I believe that, real or faked, it was a mistake to 
use such phenomena, and, however it helped in the short run, worked 
ultimately to her detriment in the long run. I find a major saving grace 
that she treated such phenomena as being unimportant, and not part of 
the teachings. And I believe that anybody who considers the genuity of 
the phenomena to be required to believe the teachings misses her point 
entirely.

Both Blavatsky and the Mahatmas pointed out that argument from 
authority is a logical fallacy; that we are to believe or disbelieve 
their teachings, not based on who they came from, but on our own 
knowledge, belief and logic regarding the teachings themselves. So I do 
that. This includes, for example, if one interpretation of the teachings 
violate that which has been measured, see if another interpretation does 
fit in. Those who consider Blavatsky and the Mahatmas to be infallible 
often do not differentiate between what they actually wrote and their 
interpretation of what they actually wrote.

A good example is the passage in the Mahatma Letters denying the 
existence of potential energy. Some deny the existence of potential 
energy based on this letter. But, on careful reading of the letter, it 
is clear that what the Mahatmas call "potential energy" and what 
scientists, even of the time, call "potential energy", are two different 
things. So let's look at two possibilities: All the experiments are 
wrong, and there is no such thing as potential energy, OR, Sinnett wrote 
to them describing a term "potential energy", giving the wrong 
description, and the Mahatmas just assumed that his description of the 
term was correct. Based what was written, the latter is FAR more likely, 
yet you have many Theosophists who firmly believe, against all physical 
evidence, in the former.

Bart