Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00397)

Wes Amerman: First of all, you refused to discuss any idea
seriously with me.

Brian: I am very glad to discuss ideas if brought "seriously" but not just 
in polemic unserious way as you do, which show no evidence of true 
scolarship.
Pls, do yourself a favor and at lest read following elementary books on 
the subject (I read them three years ago) and I am willing to discuss 
any of the subjects brought up there in a "serious" way.(see below)

But you'l have to quote referrences if you really want to have an honest 
discussion. That is another thing you don't do.

Lets start with some truthfull litterature:

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism.

Inden, R. (1990). Imagining India.

Breckenridge, C. & van der Veer, P. (1993). Orientalism and the 
postcolonial predicament: perspectives on South Asia. Philadelphia: 
University of Pennsylvania Press.

Clarke, J. (1997). Oriental enlightenment.

King, R. (1999). Orientalism and religion: postcolonial theory, India and 
the mystic East.

Brian.

Another thing is that nobody has ever been able to point out a factual 
error (with references to proof it) regarding the articles (1) posted on 
my web site. This in fact shows more about my true motivations then all 
the accusation on theos talk, evidently a true meeting ground for crazed 
out crack pots who believe in "free energy solar engines" and so on. 
Exceptions are Steve Stubbs and a very, very, few others.
Two years ago when in India to do archeological research I attended a 
short seminar that was brought to my attention by my Indian translater, 
whose uncle he told me at one point was an Indian "magician" who was 
teaching would be Indian gurus also called "godmen." On the conference 
I met an interesting Englishman called Peter Lamont from the Koestler 
Parapsychology Unit, University of Edinburgh, who gave a lecture about 
mentalism and pseudo-psychicsm. I will post this lecture as a next part 
on this web site, Nov. 17, 2002.

Peter gave a lecture in the UK later, reporting on some of the 
information gleaned at the conference in India, plus his own research on 
the subject.

Peter casted a sceptical eye over levitation, sword swallowing and body 
piercing, and demonstrated by stabbing a spike through his own 
tongue. "You can fake that or you can do it for real," he said.

Interest in the paranormal and supernatural has been around for a long 
time. In the mundane world we have, and especially the less spiritual 
world, we hanker after something that tells us there is a bit more to life. 
We have an interest in something that gives some sense of spirituality. 
Every second traveller I have met in India is on a quest for spirituality. 
They don't go to Shepherd's Bush to find it. They go to India."

The rope trick itself never used a rope. The legend is that the rope goes 
up and a boy shins up it and disappears at the top. What seems to be 
the case is that first-hand accounts of this were exaggerated over time 
from what was a pole-balancing trick. Then there were hoax photos and 
the myth was perpetuated.

Scholars have increasingly recognised the historical, political, and 
cultural importance of how the West has constructed an image of the 
East (Said, 1978; Inden, 1990; Breckenridge & Van der Veer, 1993; 
Clarke, 1997; Chatterjee, 1998; King, 1999). While they have considered 
the theme of India as a mystical land, they have virtually ignored the 
role of reported anomalous phenomena in India. Yet such phenomena 
were central to how India was viewed by the British a century ago, 
when they were by far the dominant Western influence in the sub-
continent, and they continue to shape how the West views India today. 
This paper describes how India came to be seen in Britain as a land in 
which anomalous phenomena occur. 
Tales from India of anomalous phenomena date back several centuries, 
but it was not until the nineteenth century that they became widely read 
in Britain. Contemporary reports of phenomena also appeared 
throughout the nineteenth century and, in the last quarter of the century, 
Western conjurors began to publicly expose the methods of Indian 
magicians in an attempt to show that their feats were mere trickery. 
This was not, as might be expected, a response to the influence of 
either the Theosophical Society or the legend of the Indian rope trick. 
Rather, the suggested growing belief that Indian magic was genuine 
seems to have emerged from contemporary comparisons between 
seance phenomena and feats of Indian magic. On the one hand, the 
methodological link with the Davenport brothers was rejected by 
spiritualists, who framed much of Indian jugglery as genuine and 
comparable to seance phenomena. The mainstream periodical press, on 
the other hand, used Indian jugglery as a debunking tool, framing it as 
superior trickery to that used by mediums. The Theosophical Society 
emerged from Blavatsky's involvement with spiritualism, an interest 
sparked by D. D. Home, though the latter showed nothing but scepticism 
towards the phenomena associated with Theosophy, and was later cited 
in the mainstream press as part of an attempt to debunk Indian juggling. 
The modern legend of the Indian rope trick did not become widespread 
until the last years of the century, but its roots can be found in the early 
writings of the Theosophical Society and the broader discussion that 
surrounded seance phenomena.Victorian spiritualism can therefore be 
seen not only as the precursor to psychical research and modern 
parapsychology, but as a source of widespread cultural attitudes 
towards the East that remain to this day.

(1) Excluding "dicussions." 
http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9


--- In theos-talk@y..., "Wes Amerman" <amerman@t...> wrote:
> Brian/Brigitte,
> 
> <As for "credentials", I know they say yours are close to zero.>
> 
> I've really had enough. First of all, you refused to discuss any idea
> seriously with me, and completely ignored my questions and 
comments, weeks
> and months ago, about the shortcomings of modern science and the 
gaps in its
> approach to evolution and consciousness. All you seem to want to do 
is
> bash Theosophy and any attempt to defend it, all the while quoting 
from
> secondary sources who share your derogatory views. Seldom, if 
ever, do you
> cite the source Theosophy which you claim is faulty. And, when 
someone
> (Daniel, Dallas or Leon, for example) quotes Blavatsky or someone 
who
> supports her to show another side to the matter, you put them down 
and
> attack them personally, as you most recently did by saying Daniel 
has "no
> credentials!"
> 
> Why not just take an IDEA to task? I don't mean a secondary, latter 
day
> student's interpretation, well-known or not, but a bona fide idea from
> Blavatsky or her Teachers? If you disagree with Theosophy, why not 
have the
> courage to discuss the central ideas: spiritual evolution, karma,
> reincarnation, etc. and their relationships to human lives, needs and
> aspirations today? Instead, you criticize the more abstruse and difficult
> concepts (such as rounds and races, of which you have absolutely NO 
clue),
> and then garble and misinterpret them to make it seem that they 
support the
> most heinous of UN-brotherly sentiments and actions!
> 
> <Bhakti Anada Goswhami , I only know him from his letters, made an
> intelligent impression on me. As for his credentials, I looked them up ,
> see below.>
> <Brian : I posted clearly WHY the letters where typed in
> <all caps, I decided to do the most fair I could think of , give this
> < obviously expert person, a voice.
> 
> As far as Mr. Goswhami [sic] goes, I don't know nor could care less 
what his
> credentials might be -- as if he were some sort of authority on 
Blavatsky!
> Daniel provided the following timely quote from Mr. Goswami, which 
should
> make it abundantly clear that the latter has absolutely no idea what
> Theosophy is about:
> 
> "H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophists and early Aryanists made Sri
> Lanka one of their world headquarters for exporting their militant
> atheism. Aryosophist esotericism in Britain and Germany became
> pervaded with Theravadin Buddhist thought. This 'Aryanism' doctrine
> of voidism and related moral relativism eventually became central to
> the conscienceless atrocities of the Third Reich. Theravadin
> Buddhist voidism has not been a benevolent force in history ! . ."
> 
> There is so much mere assertion, misinformation and innuendo 
contained just
> in this first paragraph that I hardly know where to start -- What, for
> example, is Theosophy's "militant atheism?" Blavatsky fought, to be 
sure,
> against dogmatic religion and religious hypocrisy, but to accuse her of
> "atheism" is the height of ignorance. What is the value of such 
contrived
> phrases as "Aryosophist esotericism," "voidism" and "related moral
> relativism?" On the surface or to the uneducated, they might sound
> learned, but they reek of academic bullshit. This conclusion is 
supported
> by the next sentence, that these ideas "eventually became central to 
the
> conscienceless atrocities of the Third Reich."!!!!!!!! What crap, Brian.
> And you have the temerity to bring this man forward on this list and 
promote
> him as an "authority" on Theosophy and Blavatsky???? I'm sure 
anyone who
> has ever read Blavatsky with half an eye open could find ample 
references in
> her writings to refute this garbage. One line from Blavatsky should 
suffice
> as a start: "Theosophy is altruism, and we cannot repeat it too often."
> And have you ever read the first object of the Theosophical 
Society: "To
> form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without 
distinction
> of race, color or creed?" [Key to Theosophy, p 39]
> 
> Just what is your purpose in "contributing" to this list? To prove that
> there are "experts" in academia who share your views? To dissuade 
inquirers
> from looking into Theosophy? To attack your least favorite historical
> personages and hope that others will come to share your biases?
> 
> Best Regards,
> Wes Amerman