Theos-Talk Archives (January 2006 Message tt00073)

Or to put it in a more direct way:

can my own personal experiences of the paranormal
be "deceptive" or "illusionary" or "misleading"?

Focusing only on some Theosophical sources, I would
say that the answer is "yes."

See the material from the writings of H.P. Blavatsky
and her Adept Teachers at:

"Psychic VERSUS Initiate Visions & Knowledge"
http://blavatskyarchives.com/psychicversusinitiate.htm

Notice the particular individuals mentioned in these
extracts....

Emanuel Swedenborg, Jakob Boehme, W. Stainton Moses,
Anna Kingsford, Edward Maitland, Rai Salig Ram.

I'm sure that none of these individuals would have agreed
with what Blavatsky and the Mahatmas said about their 
personal experiences.

They would have simply said: I know what I see and personally
experience, etc. etc.

Let us take one more example, C.W. Leadbeater's observations
of the planet Mars.

Read what he writes:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/leadbeatermars.htm

Notice what Mr. Leadbeater says about his observations:

"the information which I have given above is based upon observation 
and inquiry during various visits to the planet...."

And he clearly states that these observations are based
on his own personal experience:

"The influence of gravity both on Mars and Mercury is less than half 
what it is on earth, but while on Mars I did not notice any 
particular way in which advantage had been taken of this. I observed 
on Mercury that the doors of the houses were quite a considerable 
height...."

Now some Theosophical students may wish to consider Mr. Leadbeater a 
con artist and fraud, but if we assume he is telling the truth and 
is simply relating to us what he actually personally experienced, 
personally saw and observed, the question is:

Do his personal experiences, his personal observations of conditions 
on Mars match the facts as science now knows it?

And if the answer is no, then why?

And as far as contradictions go concerning the current topic of
reincarnation, consider this one:

"Life After Death in Kamaloka (the Astral World): H.P. Blavatsky 
versus C.W. Leadbeater"

at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/morganafterdeath.htm 

I call attention in that essay to the following statement by
Dr. Hugh Shearman:

". . . the accounts of after-death conditions in her [Blavatsky's] 
own direct writings and in the Mahatma Letters clash very 
emphatically not only with what Bishop Leadbeater and other members 
of the [Adyar Theosophical] Society later described, but also with 
descriptions given by psychics quite unconnected with the 
Society."   

Especially to the part of the statement which reads:

"also with descriptions given by psychics quite unconnected with the 
Society." 

>From my reading in new age, occult, esoteric and paranormal 
material, I would have to agree that probably 
most "psychics", "sensitives", "seers", etc. would give a 
description of life after death very similar to Leadbeater's 
description.

So why the difference between HPB/the Theosophical Adepts and these 
other psychics, etc.?

HPB even writes a letter which was published in 1882 in which she 
describes her own "illusionary" experiences earlier in her life.

See:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/blavatskyhume1881.htm

I will write more later when I have more time and will also discuss 
the relevant theory proposed by Sri Madhava Ashish in his book 
titled: Man, Son of Man.

Daniel
http://blavatskyarchives.com