Theos-Talk Archives (April 2000 Message tt00135)

In a message dated 4/12/00 12:23:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
ramadoss@eden.com writes:

Dear Ramadoss,

You said to "Martin" (referring to "David," to whom I responded), about CWL's 
clairvoyance:

 >> Identifying K was a very remarkable find of CWL and all the credit goes to
 him.
 
 One time K was questioned about his views on CWL's clairvoyance. 
 
 K's comment was that CWL was temporarily clairvoyant. Since he had known
 CWL  well, I put some credence on K's statement.
 
 mkr>>

In my book I provide several items of what strike me as very strong evidence 
for CWL's (sometimes truly astonishing) clairvoyance.  Also, as I discuss 
more fully there, EVERYONE who now speaks of any & all clairvoyant subjects 
(auras, thought forms, kundalini, chakras) is USING CWL'S UNIQUE WAY OF 
SPEAKING ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS.  Absolutely NO ONE has ever given CWL credit 
for this.  People just use his creation, this way of referring to clairvoyant 
perceptions, but without giving him credit, ever.  But THE FACT is that, as I 
document & discuss in the book, even prominent members of traditions such as 
the tantric (which make extensive use of clairvoyant issues) USE CWL'S 
TERMINOLOGY.  So does every single author who has written since CWL's time.  
This terminology had NEVER existed in history.  People ALWAYS used to speak 
of these matters using very arcane & convoluted, however often poetical, 
descriptions.  It was CWL who brought into wide use notions such as that of 
"vibrations," now immortalized by the rock group The Beach Boys, and used by 
everybody and her sister.
My question to you, & to all, is:  If he was not clairvoyant, how can one 
then explain THE FACT that EVERYONE claiming clairvoyance -- or discussing it 
in the context of ancient traditions -- is using CWL's very unique way of 
describing all this?  If CWL was NOT clairvoyant, then EVERYONE writing about 
all these subjects would likely be deceived in some important way.
To refer exclusively to K saying that CWL had been "temporarily clairvoyant" 
does not, as far as I can see (& in terms of evidence provided in the book) 
quite come even close to covering this subject.  What do you think?  Am I 
wrong about this?
In good cheer,
Aryel

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.