Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00197)

Hi Daniel,

[the difference between now and when HPB and witnesses were alive is
pretty clear, and has been explained thoroughly in someone elses post.
this post here is a more philosophical attempt at explaining my position]

Personally I feel these phenomena were real. (as real as anything gets
in this samsaric world, anyhow). But that is merely my intuition
speaking. Like the Mahatma KH (my initials-sake, not pretending any
mahatmic status though) I feel that the sceptics have enough
explanations to satisfy them. The believers have enough evidence to
satisfy them. Debate won't change much about this. Ultimately, for me,
probably for you as well, I believe the evidence of the phenomena,
because HPB's philosophy is 'proof' of her genuineness. Not the other
way around. Historical intricacies don't change much about this,
because the Mahatmas left open many places for us to doubt. I feel
they did that on purpose. They wanted us to doubt, to question. They
wanted to break open the way we think. Sinnett, as an eye-witness, had
the duty of reporting the truth as he saw it. But none of us are
eye-witnesses - what we do here is merely debate. It won't change the
evidence before us, to debate it add infinitum. 

Phenomena are ultimately child's play. They aren't very significant
either philosophically, or to our practical life. It broadens our
perspective of the possible to know (or suspect) that these things are
possible, but to focuss too much about this, is a distraction from the
spiritual path we should all be trying to tread. Not for nothing, I
think, has no one who could be considered the 'messenger' of the 20th
century focussed on phenomena as such. Krishnamurti for instance
(obviously not THE messenger, but still an important spiritual
teacher, IMO) saw even clairvoyance (relatively common sidhi after
all) as a distraction. Though the Tibetan monks usually believe in the
possibility of these things - this is part of their heritage as much
as it is part of ours - they haven't called attention to it, nor have
they tried attracting followers with it. Personally I believe we would
be wise to follow their example. 

Blavatsky had the impossible job of trying to teach some philosophy
(it took her about 14 years before she got to teaching practical
spirituality - the ES, the Voice of the Silence) to people whose only
interest in anything outside standard Christianity, or science was
spiritualism. In the western world then 'the bird of truth hardly had
a safe place to sit, between science and religion' to paraphrase a
mahatma. Blavatsky broke that place between religion and science open
- and partly as a result of that we now have 'new age', a mirriad of
buddhist sects, a choice of hindu-based sects and teachers etc. Also
Buddhism and Hinduism have renewed vigour in their respective native
countries. But all that wasn't true in HPB's days. This is, I think,
why HPB had to do those phenomena. And SHE STOPPED DOING THEM. Then
isn't now. Things have changed, in some ways for the better, though
practicing brotherhood is still a challenge. 

Blavatsky and the mahatmas around her tried to not only bring
spiritual truth, but also scientific truth. They saw these as
inextricably linked. So they gave out an enormous amount of material
on the interlinkages. As HPB said - her Secret Doctrine would be
relevant for 200 years. We are only halfway through that term. That
approach was relevant back then. It is still relevant to a few select
souls now (like me), but for most people it just isn't. People see the
general truth that science is materialistic, that orthodox religion
doesn't have the answer to their problems - and see that there is an
in between place where truth may be found. I don't know if I can put
this into words. The point is - for most the truth they seek isn't
about rounds and races and the ultimate unity of everything (to name
but a few of the many theosophical themes) - but simply: how can I
learn to live in harmony with the people around me? How can I end
suffering for myself and others? And if science comes into the
equation - how can science and spirituality be combined. They both
seem to have some truth to them? That last question will more often
lead them to Ken Wilber than to H.P. Blavatsky. 

Ken Wilber leaves the question of the possibility of siddhis in the
middle. His theories work as well without believing in those things,
as they do with those things in mind. The same for reincarnation. For
me, this is what most bothers me about his work, in fact - I see it as
an unwillingness to take a stand (he probably does believe in these
things, how could he not?). But it is this unwillingness to take a
stand that has secured his place in the scientific community. If he
had taken a stand, he would have alienated either the scientists, or
those philosophically inclined 'new agers' that form his following.
This unwillingness to make siddhis and occultism the central core of
any teachings is common to all the strands of new movements we see
today... The furthest they go is to say (TM) that meditation is good
for your health. Some will say outright that there are possibilities
beyond what we usually see, but none will make it central to their
'propoganda', their face to the world. 

I believe the truth is that siddhis are real - including the
possibility of materializing things etc. I also believe though, that
there are more important truths - like: spiritual transformation is
possible. Selfishness is ultimately self-defeating. What I do here
today, will have its effect to the furthest end of the galaxy (and
what any of the readers of this do will too). Everything that seems
real to us, will one day be dust, either literally or figuratively.
And so on and so forth. There are so many truths we can learn and
teach. Why is the truth of the siddhis so damn important? Granted - if
we had an eye-witness, that person would have the duty to speak out. I
agree with the mahatma KH on that. For instance Jeremy Wheeler
http://www.dangers-of-hypnosis.co.uk/ as a former hypnotist and
therefore a relative expert on this, has the duty to shout out to the
world (as he is doing): hypnosis isn't as innocent as you are led to
believe! If any of us shouts out that same message, it just doesn't
have that same power, because we don't know for ourselves that it is
true. Jeremy does. All we have is hearsay. He has first hand
experience. The same goes for Blavatsky's phenomena. We have hearsay -
Sinnett had first hand experience. 

[I hope the following isn't too much off topic, nor too personal] 
Daniel - you have good reason for spreading the evidence, but to
dominate the discussion on theosophical lists is going a bit too far,
IMO. Why forcibly get people to focuss on those aspects of theosophy
and truth that you feel are important? If they ask, point to the
places online and on your website that are relevant. If people feel
like it, discuss the issue, as has been happening here. But don't
force feed us the same information over and over, please. I try to act
on that principle by not reminding people of what is on my website,
every so often. I suspect those who want to know what's new on there,
can subscribe to my newsletter quite independently of my pushing them
to. I will, like you and Dallas, sometimes push a subject by asking a
question - especially if a list is falling silent - but I try to keep
that to a minimum. I feel people are quite capable of deciding for
themselves what is important for them to study. The diversity of the
resulting study is what keeps the Theosophical Movement alive.
Faithful students like yourself can always, when relevant, remind us
of what HPB or Judge thought about a certain subject. And when a
historical question gets raised - of course - go right ahead and
remind us (or point us to) the relevant information. 

I feel that the above is missing out on some details, but I think the
general message is clear??? Daniel, I hope I haven't offended you.
Your website is a blessing - and I mean that. Keep up the good work. 

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> Katinka,
> 
> You wrote in part:
> 
> ". . . finding truth where we can, and where 
> we can judge it (and those phenomena - we really 
> can't judge after more than a century)...."
> 
> Why can't we judge those phenomena? Are you 
> saying that the MERE passing of time ("after more
> than a century") has somehow made it impossible
> for us to find out the truth about those phenomena?
> 
> Let me construct a thought experiment. I believe
> you currently live in the Netherlands. Right? 
> 
> Let us go back more than a century. To be more exact
> let us go back almost 123 years ago to August 3, 1881.
> For the sake of this thought experiment, imagine that
> you (Katinka H.) are living in the Netherlands and
> receive from a friend in England a brand new copy of 
> the first edition of A.P. Sinnett's THE OCCULT WORLD
> which was only recently published in London.
> 
> You sit down in your study and start reading
> the book and come to the pages that deal with
> the cup and saucer phenomenon. This is an event
> which happened Oct. 3, 1880, exactly 10 months ago 
> from the time you are reading about the event.
> 
> Are you in 1881 in a better position to judge
> and find out the truth about this phenomenon than
> you are today in 2004 almost 123 years later?
> 
> If you are in a better position in 1881, I would
> like to know what your reasons are for making
> that statement.
> 
> Thanking you in advance for your help in trying to
> understanding your line of thinking.
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
> http://theosophy.info