Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00548)

Daniel will probably not really respond to the content of my arguments, 
just place more links to distract and confuse people instead.

Regarding the "casebook" of for example the "astral encounters with 
the Mahatmas" where they looked like real people, this is simple 
untenable, and either these astral encounters where delusions by the 
seer or frauds, as last spring Steve Stubbs sugested in case of Damodar 
mentioning the Christophorus (or watever the similar name) doll.

obvious objection to believing in the astral double appearances of
the "Mahatmas" is that,
aside from bilocations, which are difficult to take seriously, there 
is not the slightest observational evidence for its existence: nobody 
has observed it with his senses and no scientific in-artiment has 
ever detected it. This is indeed a valid objection, but I think that 
there are more basic considerations that justify us not only in not 
believing in the astral body but in rejecting it. 

For example I am not aware of cases of bilocation in which an 
astral double was observed without clothes.
Dallas/Dalval in his recent posting about driving out the Devil by 
means of Mesmerism, quoted also Blavatsky as claiming the dead would 
walk around in seances wearing the same clothes as during their life.
In fact already the famous seance stager Cagliostro/Balsamo, already 
had people come on stage claiming to be famous historical personality 
dressed up that way. 

Also when St. Anthony of Padua is said to have preached in two 
different churches in Limoges at the same time he was said to be 
wearing his usual clerical robes during both sermons. As 
for Mme. Sage, the nineteenth-century French bilocationist, she 
surely shocked her students sufficiently by appearing in two places 
without being naked in either one of her apparitions. Mrs. Wilmot's 
visit to her ailing husband greatly shocked the prudish Mr. Tait, the 
occupant of the upper berth, but he did not assert thus she came in 
the nude. 

On the contrary, all parties agreed that she was wearing her 
nightgown. In some reports of "private" OBEs, in which the traveler's 
astral body is publicly observable, the double was naked, but in 
most of them it did wear garments just like those worn by regular 
bodies. Now, the clothes worn by astral double cannot be ordinary, 
physical clothes; the astral bodies lack the solidity that could 
keep the clothes in place. The only alternative seems to be that they 
are astral clothes, but where are astral clothes manufactured and how 
do they suddenly appear on the scene when a bilocation or a private 
OBE occurs? Incidentally, what did George Ritchie wear when, after 
running out of the hospital, he flew through the air and descended in 
Vicksburg for an aborted meeting with a stranger and during his tour 
in the company of Jesus?

Another example Dr. Crookall, who is verry popular with astral 
theorists and some Theosophists (probably Caldwell), was interviewed 
a few years before his death by Martin Ebon, one of the leading 
psychic explorers in tne the York City area. 

>From all the thousands of cases with which Dr. Crookall was familiar, 
he picked an OBE by William Gerhardi as "perhaps the most complete 
and zonvincing on record." It should be explained parenthetically 
that very many of Dr. Crookall's correspondents were persons with 
little education, but Gerhardi 1896-1977) was a well-educated and 
talented novelist whose works received high praise from outstanding 
literary figures like H. G. Wells and Bernard Shaw, among others. In 
1934 he published a thinly disguised autobiography with the title 
Resurrection, in which he described his astral adventures. In the 
interview with Martin Ebon, Dr. Crookall produced extensive 
quotations from this book for which there is no space here. In the 
article cited earlier he offers the following summary:

Gerhardi used his released "double" as an instrument of the Soul-he 
used it to see, to will, to reason, etc. He set himself to accumulate 
proof that he was really freed from his physical body, in a 
nonphysical body, and that it was no dream. He said ,what evidence, 
what more evidence?" He went about noting which windows were shut, 
etc., matters that he could check when he re-entered his body. This 
he did and then thought, "We have a duplicate body, all there and 
ready to use, the almost-indistinguishable double of the physical 
body. It seems that, for the first stage of survival at least, we 
already have a body neatly folded away in our physical bodies, always 
at hand in case of death, or for special use."

Dr. Crookall agrees with Gerhardi's reasoning. "If a man can leave 
his physical body temporarily and continue to exist as a self
conscious being," he told Martin Ebon, the fact would prove a strong 
presumption that eventually when he comes to leave his physical body, 
i. e., to die, he will then also continue to exist as a self-
conscious being in that second body."(M. Ebon , "The Evidence for 
Life After Death ",New York, p.116)
Bri.




--- In theos-talk@y..., "Bill Meredith" <bilmer@s...> wrote:
> comments interlaced below
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@y...>
> To: <theos-talk@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 8:56 AM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: What does Bill Meredith think about Olcott's
> Experiences with the Masters?
> 
> 
> > Bill,
> >
> > Now I see what you want to discuss. You don't really want to 
discuss
> > Olcott's experiences or discuss your hypothesis about them and your
> > reasons for "adopting" that hypothesis.
> > You want me to look critically at my own biases and prejudices in
> > the process. I see: this is the whole issue to you.
> 
> 
> This is the whole issue for one who presents himself as neutral, 
creates
> charts, uses the 4 step process to discover the truth, and ignores how 
his
> bias and prejudice influence his discovery process right down to the 
nitty
> gritty of which words he chooses.
> 
> >
> > No doubt, I have prejudices and biases. And you don't? I assume
> > that you might have them too. And since Steve Stubbs has a similar
> > opinion to mine about Olcott's experiences, I guess he also has
> > prejudices and biases. What about Muehlegger? We could spent 
weeks
> > discussing not only my biases but everyone else's too. :)
> 
> 
> Of course we all have bias and prejudice. If 'weeks' is too much time 
for
> you to invest in self-discovery and improvement of your thought 
processes,
> then how much time are you willing to invest?
> 
> 
> > But the real question is: can all of us put aside at least for the
> > time being those "preferences" and "biases" and try to rationally
> > discuss and understand Olcott's "alleged" experiences.
> 
> Well if you had put aside your preferences and biases you would have 
chosen
> different words to formulate your statements of fact and subject 
lines. I
> simply pointed this out to you. Even above, you cannot bring yourself 
to
> refer to Olcott's experiences as alleged. No, you must qualify with
> quotation marks (modifiers) the same as Blavatsky did "devil". Now I 
don't
> mind that you believe what you can't help believing. I do mind when 
you
> claim to have laid aside your prejudice and biases for a neutral 
scholarly
> look at something as mundane as Olcott's alleged experiences and 
still use
> words like Master instead of 'master'.
> 
> >
> > Maybe you will say this only reflects one of my "biases". Perhaps.
> 
> 
> Perhaps.
> 
> 
> > Bill, when I have the time to study and compare your hypothesis 6
> > with the views of others, I will be most happy to discuss that
> > hypothesis with you.
> 
> Well if you discuss it using your present thought processes which have
> obviously become inculcated in your mind, little will be gained. But 
have
> it your way. Mine was but to point out that you have not laid aside 
your
> bias as you claim. Do with that observation what you will.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > Bill Meredith wrote:
> > > Daniel,
> > > I offered you the opportunity to look critically at your own
> > experience
> > > instead of losing yourself trying to analyze the historical
> > accounts of a
> > > dead man. The bias and prejudice of your thought processes of
> > which ample
> > > evidence exists in your writings is not a side issue. It is the
> > whole
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > I urge you to examine your thinking and search for that delicate
> > moment in
> > > the process where one's beliefs become one's truth, and one's 
truth
> > becomes
> > > the one truth, and the one truth becomes the basis for one's
> > beliefs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >