Jun 04, 1996 01:21 AM
by alexis dolgorukii
At 09:10 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Have you or anybody else proven that he was NOT a real and living person? If
>that has not been proven, either, then it follows that it could be entirely
>possible that he WAS a real and living person, right? I mean, so far nothing
>is proven, right?
Bjorn: May I suggest that you read Albert Screecher's book: "The Search for
the Historical Jesus", and then we can talk about this subject. I am not a
Christian "near Saint" Schweitzer is. I always prefer to refer people to
>Another fact to consider is that there are many beings in our universe who
>have never lived on this planet. Any number of them may be encountered, for
>better or for worse, as the case may be.
That is true, but one has no way of actually identifying them. The hard part
for those not Shamans, is deciding what is real.
>What about your "spirits". Can they be empirically proven? I know that you
>have talked about them, even on this list. Or are you testifying about
>matters that are unseen (physically) and can not be empirically proven
Can I be empirically proven? Yes I can. Well I am intrinsically a spirit,
as are you. As a Shaman, "spirits"who are intrinsically unidentifiable, use
my body and voice as a transmitter for the Cosmic harmonic. Who they are, I
have no idea,although I do see them from time to time, and they are very
interesting indeed. BUT that is a far cry from saying I have met the Master
K.H. or The Master Jesus. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I have
met several people whom I consider to be Adeptii, but they were in the
flesh. Some of the spirits I work with and see may indeed be at that level
but I would never presume to say so. If one is going to be an occultist, one
must follow the rules of occultism.
>>My strong disapproval of Elisabeth Clair Prophet arises from my estimation
>>that the woman is entirely fraudulent. The same disapproval also arises from
>>a lot of reading of her printed words and they are totally unoriginal and un
>>valid. My disapproval of her "disciples" arises from the fact that I find it
>>inconceivable that anyone could fall for her words.
>These are almost the exact same words that were thrown at Blavatsky,
>thousands of times. What you do is expressing a strong personal opinion,
>which I certainly respect, but certainly no "proof".
Many people have called Mme. Blavatsky a fraud, and in some instances they
may be right. But reading her words one finds they are anything but
superficial and banal, they may be absurd and ridiculous, but they are never
banal. The theosophical writings that are banal and superficial were mostly
written by Bishop Leadbeater and his many imitators, and they in fact are
the basic sources for Elisabeth clair Prophets writings.
>I have also studied her printed and spoken word, as those of her
>predecessor, Mark Prophet. I have meditated on the energies and
>consciousness content of the material, studied their auras and so forth, and
>have come to an ENTIRELY different conclusion.
His name by the way, was Mark Probbert (he was her husband, not simply her
predecessor). She changed it after his death to suit her purposes. This is
one of the many reasons I find her extremely questionable. One of the joys
of being a doddering old man is that I can say I met him once or twice. I
liked him and thought he was a valid psychic. I do not think she is. i don't
think he thought she was either.
>Well, just like people fell for HPB they fall for ECP. And usually those who
>fall for her are intelligent people and independent thinkers.
But you see Bjorn, I was attracted to theosophy by three little things, the
three objects, and by one big thing, the motto: "There's No Religion Higher
Than Truth". I didn't "fall for HPB" or "CWL' or anyone. I was much
attracted by "Isis Unveiled", but I am regarded as at least neo-heretical by
many theosophists for my views on "The Secret Doctrine"
>The only source where much of the teachings of this movement is to be found
>in a concentrated form is in the book "Climb the Highest Mountain". To me it
>seems hard to believe that this book (and others) can be perceived as
>"banal" or "superficial". IMO it is very much in the theosophic tradition
>and similar in vibration. I hope nobody on this list is even considering
>judging this matter based on either my or Alexis views, though. It is easy
>enough to check out for anyone who like to do so. Here are some web pages
>for a starter, including a short book list:
Oh I couldn't agree more, don't ever think I want anyone to take my word for
anything. Read her words by all means. I trust the judgement of most people
on this list.
>>You have been entirely "up front" and honest about your point of view, I
>>could do no other than be equally frank and honest in my response. I have no
>>animosity toward you are any of the people in the "I Am Movement" or the
>>"Church Universal and Triumphant" but i do have a good deal of pity.
>How do you show this "pity"? I mean how are you going to show me pity, now,
>seeing that I believe in these things?
Bjorn: "Pity" is something one feels, it cannot be demonstrated. What it
means is that I feel "sorry" for you. There are better things, I believe,
for one to believe in. But it is your choice. You will learn differently in
time. You are relatively young yet.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application