Daniel will probably not really respond to the content of my arguments,
just place more links to distract and confuse people instead.

Regarding the "casebook" of for example the "astral encounters with
the Mahatmas" where they looked like real people, this is simple
untenable, and either these astral encounters where delusions by the
seer or frauds, as last spring Steve Stubbs sugested in case of Damodar
mentioning the Christophorus (or watever the similar name) doll.

obvious objection to believing in the astral double appearances of
the "Mahatmas" is that,
aside from bilocations, which are difficult to take seriously, there
is not the slightest observational evidence for its existence: nobody
has observed it with his senses and no scientific in-artiment has
ever detected it. This is indeed a valid objection, but I think that
there are more basic considerations that justify us not only in not
believing in the astral body but in rejecting it.

For example I am not aware of cases of bilocation in which an
astral double was observed without clothes.
Dallas/Dalval in his recent posting about driving out the Devil by
means of Mesmerism, quoted also Blavatsky as claiming the dead would
walk around in seances wearing the same clothes as during their life.
In fact already the famous seance stager Cagliostro/Balsamo, already
had people come on stage claiming to be famous historical personality
dressed up that way.

Also when St. Anthony of Padua is said to have preached in two
different churches in Limoges at the same time he was said to be
wearing his usual clerical robes during both sermons. As
for Mme. Sage, the nineteenth-century French bilocationist, she
surely shocked her students sufficiently by appearing in two places
without being naked in either one of her apparitions. Mrs. Wilmot's
visit to her ailing husband greatly shocked the prudish Mr. Tait, the
occupant of the upper berth, but he did not assert thus she came in
the nude.

On the contrary, all parties agreed that she was wearing her
nightgown. In some reports of "private" OBEs, in which the traveler's
astral body is publicly observable, the double was naked, but in
most of them it did wear garments just like those worn by regular
bodies. Now, the clothes worn by astral double cannot be ordinary,
physical clothes; the astral bodies lack the solidity that could
keep the clothes in place. The only alternative seems to be that they
are astral clothes, but where are astral clothes manufactured and how
do they suddenly appear on the scene when a bilocation or a private
OBE occurs? Incidentally, what did George Ritchie wear when, after
running out of the hospital, he flew through the air and descended in
Vicksburg for an aborted meeting with a stranger and during his tour
in the company of Jesus?

Another example Dr. Crookall, who is verry popular with astral
theorists and some Theosophists (probably Caldwell), was interviewed
a few years before his death by Martin Ebon, one of the leading
psychic explorers in tne the York City area.

From all the thousands of cases with which Dr. Crookall was familiar,
he picked an OBE by William Gerhardi as "perhaps the most complete
and zonvincing on record." It should be explained parenthetically
that very many of Dr. Crookall's correspondents were persons with
little education, but Gerhardi 1896-1977) was a well-educated and
talented novelist whose works received high praise from outstanding
literary figures like H. G. Wells and Bernard Shaw, among others. In
1934 he published a thinly disguised autobiography with the title
Resurrection, in which he described his astral adventures. In the
interview with Martin Ebon, Dr. Crookall produced extensive
quotations from this book for which there is no space here. In the
article cited earlier he offers the following summary:

Gerhardi used his released "double" as an instrument of the Soul-he
used it to see, to will, to reason, etc. He set himself to accumulate
proof that he was really freed from his physical body, in a
nonphysical body, and that it was no dream. He said ,what evidence,
what more evidence?" He went about noting which windows were shut,
etc., matters that he could check when he re-entered his body. This
he did and then thought, "We have a duplicate body, all there and
ready to use, the almost-indistinguishable double of the physical
body. It seems that, for the first stage of survival at least, we
already have a body neatly folded away in our physical bodies, always
at hand in case of death, or for special use."

Dr. Crookall agrees with Gerhardi's reasoning. "If a man can leave
his physical body temporarily and continue to exist as a self
conscious being," he told Martin Ebon, the fact would prove a strong
presumption that eventually when he comes to leave his physical body,
i. e., to die, he will then also continue to exist as a self-
conscious being in that second body."(M. Ebon , "The Evidence for
Life After Death ",New York, p.116)

Bri.




--- In theos-talk@y..., "Bill Meredith" <bilmer@s...> wrote:
> comments interlaced below
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@y...>
> To: <theos-talk@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 8:56 AM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: What does Bill Meredith think about Olcott's
> Experiences with the Masters?
>
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > Now I see what you want to discuss. You don't really want to
discuss
> > Olcott's experiences or discuss your hypothesis about them and your
> > reasons for "adopting" that hypothesis.
> > You want me to look critically at my own biases and prejudices in
> > the process. I see: this is the whole issue to you.
>
>
> This is the whole issue for one who presents himself as neutral,
creates
> charts, uses the 4 step process to discover the truth, and ignores how
his
> bias and prejudice influence his discovery process right down to the
nitty
> gritty of which words he chooses.
>
> >
> > No doubt, I have prejudices and biases. And you don't? I assume
> > that you might have them too. And since Steve Stubbs has a similar
> > opinion to mine about Olcott's experiences, I guess he also has
> > prejudices and biases. What about Muehlegger? We could spent
weeks
> > discussing not only my biases but everyone else's too. :)
>
>
> Of course we all have bias and prejudice. If 'weeks' is too much time
for
> you to invest in self-discovery and improvement of your thought
processes,
> then how much time are you willing to invest?
>
>
> > But the real question is: can all of us put aside at least for the
> > time being those "preferences" and "biases" and try to rationally
> > discuss and understand Olcott's "alleged" experiences.
>
> Well if you had put aside your preferences and biases you would have
chosen
> different words to formulate your statements of fact and subject
lines. I
> simply pointed this out to you. Even above, you cannot bring yourself
to
> refer to Olcott's experiences as alleged. No, you must qualify with
> quotation marks (modifiers) the same as Blavatsky did "devil". Now I
don't
> mind that you believe what you can't help believing. I do mind when
you
> claim to have laid aside your prejudice and biases for a neutral
scholarly
> look at something as mundane as Olcott's alleged experiences and
still use
> words like Master instead of 'master'.
>
> >
> > Maybe you will say this only reflects one of my "biases". Perhaps.
>
>
> Perhaps.
>
>
> > Bill, when I have the time to study and compare your hypothesis 6
> > with the views of others, I will be most happy to discuss that
> > hypothesis with you.
>
> Well if you discuss it using your present thought processes which have
> obviously become inculcated in your mind, little will be gained. But
have
> it your way. Mine was but to point out that you have not laid aside
your
> bias as you claim. Do with that observation what you will.
>
> Bill
>
>
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > Bill Meredith wrote:
> > > Daniel,
> > > I offered you the opportunity to look critically at your own
> > experience
> > > instead of losing yourself trying to analyze the historical
> > accounts of a
> > > dead man. The bias and prejudice of your thought processes of
> > which ample
> > > evidence exists in your writings is not a side issue. It is the
> > whole
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > I urge you to examine your thinking and search for that delicate
> > moment in
> > > the process where one's beliefs become one's truth, and one's
truth
> > becomes
> > > the one truth, and the one truth becomes the basis for one's
> > beliefs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >