Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00003)

Brenda:

>>>Why don't you just let the clairvoyants analyze his
>>>observations? He sees things and tells about them and we don't
>>>see them.

>> Are you suggesting that we should never question what a
>>clairvoyant claims to see?

>Jerry,
>
>This is really embarrasing because Eldon hasn't ever brought up any of the
>study material in our de Purucker group. We're studying (The Doctrine of
>the Spheres, VII) and this book claims so much that is fantastical:
>humanities on every planet, Venus and Mercury in their Seventh Round, Mars
>in her Third Round but on the higher spheres, etc. Jupiter has a humanity,
>too, he claims, but.... oh, just listen:
>
>"The forms of the inhabitants of the different planets are very various
>indeed, and we men of Earth in our egoism might not easily accept those
>beings as intelligent, sensitive, and conscious, in our senses of these
>words. ...
>
>What's the use of proving something like this wrong?

There are two parts to this question. First is how was the information
obtained. Second is to what use to we put the information.

I don't think that Purucker ever claimed to be a clairvoyant. (Is that word
French for "seer"? -- the word we use does not matter much.) I've heard two
ways that he has been presented. One description is that Purucker was a
scholar of the theosophical literature, and his lectures and writings are the
results of his studies. The second is that Purucker was an appointed
spokesman for the Mahatmas, and was authorized with them to give out materials
that could well have gone beyond what Blavatsky was authorized to present.
Whichever way we look at Purucker -- as scholar or Teacher -- we still have
the source of his information as being *taught*, as coming either directly
or indirectly from the knowledge of the Mahatmas. This is entirely different
that information obtained from out-of-the-body experiences, from dreams and
visions, from personal psychic and clairvoyant experiences.

Regarding the use that we put the information, it should be studied in the
context of the book it is in. Taken as an isolated passage, it does potentially
sound strange, especially to someone new to Theosophy.

-- Eldon