Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00752)

Dear Morten,

America certainly was the hotbed of new religious movements in the 
19th century; one could add Pastor Russell of the Jehovah's 
Witnesses or any of a number of Spiritualist founders. However 
there are significant non-US movements of the same time-frame-- 
Radhasoami and Baha'i for example. I can assure you that there are 
far fewer titles on their founders than on Cayce. If you can think 
of other comparable figures from the 19th or early 20th century I 
will look up the number of books they have inspired. Steiner might 
be the leading figure, even ahead of Cayce IIRC but so many of 
his "books" are glorified pamphlets. I can't say much for the 
*quality* of a lot of those Cayce books-- but not only are there a 
lot of them but they have sold far more copies than anything on 
Smith, Eddy, HPB, et al.

As to "the point"-- I was answering a question from Steve about why 
Cayce should be taken seriously and *his* historical significance is 
certainly primarily as an *American* spiritual movement founder. 
Theosophy is indeed a special case, American-born but conceived 
(depending on how you define it) elsewhere and maturing elsewhere. 
My point was obviously about Theosophy and not theosophy which has 
no birthplace.

However, if the perspective is global rather than American my point 
about Cayce's historical significance still stands.

Paul

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten N. Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> My views are:
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> "Cayce has had more books written about him than have
> Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, HPB, or any other
> founder of an American-born new religious movement."
> 
> The are other new religious movements than the American ones.
> To say that Blavatsky and Theosophy are American-born
> is to miss the point - as far as I understand theosophy.
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 2:50 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Why take them seriously if they are 
demonstrably wrong?
> 
> 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "stevestubbs" 
<stevestubbs@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > This is a naive question I am sure, but if the Cayce readings 
are
> > > demonstrably wrong why take them seriously? I am not 
suggesting
> > that
> > > we should not, since Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things 
but
> > > worth reading nonetheless. Cayce never did strike me as being 
on
> > a
> > > par with Aristotle or even Blavatsky.
> > >
> > Dear Steve,
> >
> > The question is phrased in a way that illustrates the fallacy of
> > misplaced concreteness, and could be applied to the Bible,
> > Blavatsky, any figure in religious or political history, ad
> > infinitum. Until someone finds a figure who was NEVER 
demonstrably
> > wrong about anything, this objection is universally applicable.
> >
> > The fallacy is translating "elements of the Cayce readings 
(Bible,
> > etc.) are demonstrably wrong" as "the Cayce readings are
> > demonstrably wrong." A whole lot is lost in that translation 
which
> > obscures the possibility that some elements are demonstrably
> > correct. (Which is a fact and not a probability with Cayce.)
> >
> > Even if the readings were demonstrably wrong on everything, they
> > would still be worth taking seriously for their historical
> > significance. E.g. Wouter Hanegraaff who devotes as much 
attention
> > to Cayce as to anyone in his magisterial study of the New Age
> > movement. Cayce has had more books written about him than have
> > Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, HPB, or any other
> > founder of an American-born new religious movement.
> >
> > But that scholarly kind of taking seriously would probably 
account
> > for very few memberships in ARE. Most members take them 
seriously
> > for the usefulness of the advice they contain on health, 
meditation,
> > dreams, astrology, and such. (I did a study years ago of which
> > books were circulated most by ARE library, and these were the 
higher-
> > ranking subjects.)
> >
> > Of course many members do take Cayce seriously as a clairvoyant 
time
> > traveler depicting ancient prehistory and the near future. I 
don't,
> > and think that the emphasis on this aspect of the readings will
> > shrink over time.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >