Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00104)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> Hallo Paul and all of you,

Hi Morten,

I'm sorry not to have much more to offer on this, but the question 
you're repeating just eludes me. Are you familiar with the 
term "leading question"? It's forbidden in American courts-- that 
is for a lawyer to make a long convoluted statement and then at the 
end say "isn't that right?" or "don't you agree?" etc. Such 
questions are a kind of bullying-- manipulating and controlling 
discussion rather than simply asking for someone's opinion or 
observation.

> My views are:
> 
> 1. I am not accusing you of anything. I was just asking a 
question. 

An accusing question. Adopting the form of a question does not hide 
the substance of accusation.
> 
> 2. But, what if Idries Shah had the same intentions with his 
books - ie. that they were spiritual decoys - at least in part ?
> We won't know that, because he didn't tell us did he ?
> 
Seems to me he "told" us in many ways that he was playing a 
trickster role, as for example by publishing the book consisting of 
nothing but empty pages.

> 3. What good does it do to contrast a page by Arvan Harvat, for
> example on the lataif, that states "there is no unanimity regarding
> the lataif" (its patterns/ordering) in authentic sources but then 
on another dismisses Idries Shah's info on the subject to be "the 
fictions of Idries Shah"?
> 
Sorry, I have no idea what you are asking here. 

> Harvat)
> Do you disagree on this ?

Again, I cannot agree or disagree with a question (even if I 
understood what was being asked.)
> 
> 4. There is more... now - today - only a few years after his death 
he get dragged down with smear.
> When he lived they didn't dare to accuse him.

??? James Moore's article in Religion Today appeared in late 1986. 

> A possible reason is that some of the scholars - inwardly knew he 
was right.
> Namely, that they were what he called them: merely Scholars.
> Which to him was the same as being Ignorant.
> For sure Idries Shah created some enemies among the scholars when 
he lived.

Seems to me that Moore's ire has to do with Shah's takeover of 
Coombe Springs, manipulation and deceit associated with Shah's 
general dealings with the Gurdjieffian heritage, and therefore have 
more to do with Moore being a Gurdjieffian than a scholar. As for 
other unnamed individuals, I cannot speculate.

> His writings tells a clear tale about that.
> And because of that some of them now take revenge because he is 
physically dead. I say this even when some of them would call it by 
another name. Do you also disagree on that ?
> 
Another leading question. I cannot respond about the unknown 
motivations of unnamed individuals-- how could one have an opinion 
about "some" of "them" without any other clue as to whom is being 
accused of what exactly? 

> You aught for sure to take spiritual dimensions into account if 
you really want to be scientific. That was why Blavatsky and other
> used the Akasha - the non-physical library to read the truth about 
physical events from.
> Not true ?
> 
Another leading question, and irrelevant distraction.
> 
> Emails are designs, which can be eyeopeners to the spiritual 
Wisdom and Truth behind the curtains.
> This email is such a design.
> 
It's clearly not a sincere attempt to communicate. So let's drop 
it; I haven't time for your games.

Paul