1123Re: [anthroposophy] Phylos
- Jun 17 7:32 AM
>>Starman: ******* Mabel Collins, who claimed to have received those 4 linesbhive@... writes in response:
>from 'the Brothers', actually lifted them from a spirit-dictated manuscript
>from1888 (years before 'Light On The Path' was 'written down' by her),
>which has been published through the years by Steinerbooks: "A Dweller On Two
>Planets" by "Phylos the Thibetan"...
>Dr. Steiner obviously considered Light on the Path to be genuine or else*******As usual, Bruce has his facts wrong---just as with his insistence a
>he wouldn't have bothered to do an exegesis.
>Light on the Path was first published in 1888, _7_ years before the
>manuscript of A Dweller On Two Planets was complete. It is obvious as to
>who plagiarised who.
few months ago that Steiner commented approvingly on Edgar Cayce's "Earth
Changes" predictions, which Cayce didn't even start making till 7 years after
Steiner was dead. (Note: a recurrent problem with time-sequences has to do
with the phlegmatic nature going wrong.) The manuscript of Phylos' was
written in 1883-4 and put in its final shape in 1888, not 1895 as the
gentleman implies; Mabel Collins published her 'Light On The Path' long after
Phylos' book was already circulating.
That she presented her information as direct from imaginary 'brothers'
has no bearing on its possible value, as it was lifted from a true source;
just as people may convince themselves that stuff they are dredging up from
their own subconscious is being 'channelled' from someone (Jesus, God,
Angels, White Brotherhood, etc.), but there can still be truthful information
mixed in with its self-serving distortions, or correct data can be obtained
through hypnosis even though stuff from that source can't be routinely
trusted. Max Heindel stole all his basic ideas from Steiner, but there might
be good in what he cooked up out of it: maybe even Mrs. Prophet had
worthwhile knowledge in her books claiming to be from St. Germain and the
ubiquitous 'Koot Hoomi' of Blavatsky's. Circumstances forced Steiner often to
comment on many works he may have found quite wanting from certain angles but
could use to reach people---like Leadbeater, Sinnett, etc., and even for that
matter Blavatsky, whose "Secret Doctrine", after leaving the Society, he
called 2/3 rubbish.
There is no way, however, that an 18-year-old boy in California could
have gotten the 4 lines from an obscure book by "M.C." published in England
AFTER his spirit-dictated manscript was complete; nor has there ever been any
suggestion in the past century that any of "A Dweller On Two Planets" was
copied from any source and not really spirit-dictated.
As a contribution to the 'mystery of evil' thread, here we have a good
example (for any who care to really see) of Steiner being turned into a
'religion', which always ends in accusing someone you disagree with of being
evil: "I want to believe in Steiner, he commented on Collins, therefore
Collins must be 'holy', anyone who says different is the Devil, destroy the
infidels!" However, it does not appear the facts are on the side of Mrs.
Collins in this case, for any non-believers who can think. I will not expect
a retraction of the accusation of plagarism though, from someone who is still
evading admitting he was wrong about Steiner and Cayce.
- Next post in topic >>