Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00068)

Hi Sufilight,

> The truth about it all seems on one level to be floating along the 
levels of Floodlights and Science.

The truth of what Shah claimed about himself and Sufism and its 
variance with known facts? That variance can be dismissed as 
unimportant, but not as "clearly false" without evidence.

> On another level we are talking about reading the Akasha or the 
non-physical libraries.
> 

You could certainly argue that Shah was genuine in important ways 
even if guilty of imposture in other ways. But to deny that 
imposture occurred, in the face of strong evidence, is to make a 
*historical* claim and not just one about metaphysical or ethical
values. So the nature of your labelling the information about 
Shah's imposture as "clearly false" brings you into the realm of 
historical evidence.

> I admit, that it is maybe not good enough as what you would call a 
required refutation.

Far be it from me to require anything, but a certain kind of 
statement inherently requires appropriate evidence for anyone not 
ready to take it on faith.
> 
Cheers,

Paul