You name them, I'll look them up (to Morten)
Sep 26, 2004 07:45 AM
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
However, if the perspective is global rather than American my point
about Cayce's historical significance still stands.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Morten N. Olesen" <global-
> 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: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 2:50 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Why take them seriously if they are
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "stevestubbs"
> > wrote:
> > > This is a naive question I am sure, but if the Cayce readings
> > > demonstrably wrong why take them seriously? I am not
> > that
> > > we should not, since Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things
> > > worth reading nonetheless. Cayce never did strike me as being
> > 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
> > wrong about anything, this objection is universally applicable.
> > The fallacy is translating "elements of the Cayce readings
> > etc.) are demonstrably wrong" as "the Cayce readings are
> > demonstrably wrong." A whole lot is lost in that translation
> > 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
> > 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
> > for very few memberships in ARE. Most members take them
> > for the usefulness of the advice they contain on health,
> > dreams, astrology, and such. (I did a study years ago of which
> > books were circulated most by ARE library, and these were the
> > ranking subjects.)
> > Of course many members do take Cayce seriously as a clairvoyant
> > traveler depicting ancient prehistory and the near future. I
> > and think that the emphasis on this aspect of the readings will
> > shrink over time.
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application