Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00037)

Alecis,

I guess this is one place where we differ.

I agree that any form of ESP is inborn & not learned, but I still think that
the inborn talent can be used more effectively if it is trained to
understand better what it perceives. I don't really know how that works with
auras, so I'm not going to say anything on that subject. I'm very glad that
you & John have had such successful healings. I think that's great. But it's
still my considered opinion that with training you would be even more effective.

As for theosophists being given respect, I would say that this would be
better as respect for our collective wisdom, than for any shallow scientific
proof we could or could not produce.

Liesel
Member Ti, TSA, TS in Canada, HR
...............................................................................



>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
>
>
>