Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00406)

Dallas,

Thanks for clarifying your point.

Also in your quote from HPB, readers
might notice this particular point:

"No vision of one adept was accepted 
till it was checked and confirmed by the
visions - so obtained as to stand as independent 
evidence - of other adepts, and
by centuries of experiences."

This reminds me of what Mahatma K.H.
wrote to A.P. Sinnett:

". . . You have heard of and read about a good many Seers, in the 
past and present centuries, such as Swedenborg, Boehme, and others. 
Not one among the number but thoroughly honest, sincere, and as 
intelligent, as well educated; aye, even learned. Each of them in 
addition to these qualities, has or had . . . a 'Guardian' and a 
Revelator -- under whatever 'mystery' and 'mystic name' -- whose 
mission it is -- or has been to spin out to his spiritual ward -- a 
new system embracing all the details of the world of Spirit. Tell me, 
my friend, do you know of two that agree? And why, since truth is 
one, and that putting entirely the question of discrepancies in 
details aside -- we do not find them agreeing even upon the most 
vital problems -- those that have either 'to be, or not to be' -- and 
of which there can be no two solutions?" 
Master Koot Hoomi, The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., Letter 48

Daniel



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" wrote:
> Aug 21 2004
> 
> Dear Daniel:
> 
> Thanks for catching that.
> 
> What I mean (meant) is that the mere statement "I said," or "I 
did," can in
> some cases, be unique as an experience to a single individual -- 
perhaps a
> result of fancy, desire or even wishful thinking. As such it 
demands
> additional verification.
> 
> What I would call testimony and evidence is that which others can 
verify,
> by duplicating the experiment, or reviewing the picture (?), or if 
that
> fails by carefully reviewing the logic of the reported experience --
to see
> how it fits in with universal laws: physical, psychic, intellectual 
and
> metaphysical. 
> 
> I realize the way I phrased this originally was awkward.
> 
> Here is what HPB says in the S D I 272-3
> 
> " That it is the uninterrupted record covering thousands of 
generations of
> Seers whose respective experiences were made to test and to verify 
the
> traditions passed orally by one early race to another, of the 
teachings of
> higher and exalted beings, who watched over the childhood of 
Humanity. That
> for long ages, the "Wise Men" of the Fifth Race, of the stock saved 
and
> rescued from the last cataclysm and shifting of continents, had 
passed their
> lives in learning, not teaching. 
> 
> How did they do so? It is answered: by checking, testing, and 
verifying in
> every department of nature the traditions of old by the independent 
visions
> of great adepts; i.e., men who have developed and perfected their 
physical,
> mental, psychic, and spiritual organisations to the utmost possible 
degree.
> No vision of one adept was accepted till it was checked and 
confirmed by the
> visions-so obtained as to stand as independent evidence-of other 
adepts, and
> by centuries of experiences. "
> 
> Best wishes.
> 
> Dallas
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel H. Caldwell [mailto:danielhcaldwell@y...] 
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 9:11 AM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Dallas on "That is testimony not evidence."
> 
> Dallas, you wrote:
> 
> =======================================================
> 
> In any case, statements such as "I have been there." 
> Or I (or others) have seen ---!" That is testimony 
> not evidence. It is a type of one up-manship . . . .
> 
> =======================================================
> 
> Dallas, I am somewhat confused by your statement
> above.
> 
> Testimony is certainly evidence. It's also
> called testimonial evidence.
> 
> Most of our understanding of history is based 
> on testimony. "I have been there." or "I (or
> others) have seen ---- !"
> 
> If we deleted all the testimonial evidence from
> Cranston's book on HPB, I don't think the book
> would be very large!
> 
> Maybe in some cases there is "one up-manship"
> but does that kind of label apply to HPB's testimony
> and Olcott'testimony and Judge's testimony
> about the Masters and the phenomena surrounding
> the Masters?
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links