Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00029)

At 11:07 PM 4/7/96 -0500, you wrote:
>To: Don DeGracia,
>
>I guess we'll start where we left off. If you're going to prove everything
>scientifically, I wonder how you're going to prove scientifically that a
>very skilled clairvoyant can diagnose a slight heart murmur from Sidney
>Australia to upstate New York. I checked it out with an EKG, & the diagnosis
>was correct. That, just as an example. I agree with you that we don't want
>dogma & beliefs to creep into our system, but I think we have to be on the
>lookout for those another way. The scientific method, such as we know it
>today, just isn't broad enough to cover all realms of nature.
>
>Liesel
>Member TI, TSA, TS in Canada, HR
>
>Liesel:

As to "scientific proof", well there's a kind of proof quite amenable to
being called "scientific". But first I want to object to the term "skilled"
and replace it with "talented", clairvoyance,, and I maintain this out of
personal experience, "clairvoyance" and all the other paranormal facilities
are inborn abilities and not  learned techniques. In this, with all due
respect for your long friendship with them, I am forced by my own life
experience to disagree with the Van Gelders.

Now, as you know, both John and I are healers. When John does a reading on a
person, theretofore unknown to him, and the person goes to Stanford Hospital
the next day and their analysis of the persons conditions etc. match Johns
in every respect. That's a kind of scientific proof. Most especially if it
is repeatable in every circumstance with a different patient. Now as to my
work: When a young man comes to me not simply HIV+ but suffering from
Thrush, Lymphoma, and PCP and has a T Cell Count of 0,and, after the first
rtreatment the Thrush is gone, after the second the PCP and Lymphoma is
gone, and after the thrid his T Cell count has gone up to 750, to me It's
proof. To his Doctor it was a "miraculous spontaneous remission". But that
was three years ago, and as far as I know he's still healthy. These type of
things are amenable to that sort of "proof". Now Aura reading are so
subjective they cannot be so proven. But there are instances when "past life
reading or experiences" while not totally amenable to proof are certainly
indicative of validity. As to Shamanism, which you know is a very important
part of my life, it is totally real to those who expereince it, and to those
who I cause to expereince it. It is totally unreal except hypothetically to
those who have not had the experience.

Theosophy, as Don Di Gracia indicates must be willing to stand up in the
court of opinion with its ideas and perceptions. We must if we are to be
given any respect.

Alexis