Theos-Talk Archives (August 2000 Message tt00030)

Here's an old letter I found in my accumulating, letters to answer file that 
I had already answered but apparently forgot to send.  Well, better late than 
never. And what better time then during this sparse vacation period.:-)

In a message dated 05/24/00 7:20:55 PM, kellogg@west.net writes:

>Book I, Part III, Pg. 510.  Five lines up from the bottom a line begins,
>
>"Says Stallo:  "If we reduce the mass upon which a given force, however 
small, 
>acts to its limit zero -- or, mathematically expressed, until it becomes 
infinitely
>small -- the consequence is that the velocity of the resulting motion is 
infinitely
>great, and that the 'thing' ... is at any given moment neither here nor
>there, but everywhere..."  >>>>>>>  e = mc^2

Actually, HPB's commentary on this statement said that this analogy (as well 
as its conclusion) is based on materialistic thinking and is totally wrong -- 
since it separates mass from energy. But, it could give us the insight that 
as a force or mass-energy, which is fundamentally correlated with the motion 
of spin, resolves down to an infinitesimal point, it's energy would 
necessarily become infinite -- since the energy at any zero-point-instant, 
which is everywhere in the "vacuum" or "emptiness" of both the manifest or 
unmanifest universe, is fundamentally, already infinite.  From a mathematical 
standpoint, we would have to see this as the individual particle of mass 
adding its energy to the total energy of all the matter in the universe 
expressed as inertial force.  If this mass, then, is considered as a single 
unit of force, when we add it to the infinite energy already in the 
zero-point, that root energy still remains infinite, and all we are adding, 
perhaps, is the information patterns carried by the added energy fields.
>
>Book I, Part III, Pg. 582 --- "It is equally impossible to conceive of matter
>without energy, as of energy without matter; from one point of view both
>are convertible terms."  >>>>>>>>>>>  e = mc^2

Actually, while HPB here quotes Crooke, she points out that this too is a 
narrow materialistic view which is only a shadow of the occult concept.  
Crooke's implication here is that matter is made of "energy" which he later 
described as 'atoms created' by energy.  HPB, then goes on to berate Crooke 
as well as all classical scientsts for not recognizing the "unity" of energy 
and matter right from the primal beginning, and leaving Time -- which is 
integrally linked to manifest energy -- out of their considerations.  It's 
her view that is e=mc^2, not those scientist's.

>I'm not Leon but, nonetheless,  find these two sentences rather intriguing.

Unfortunately, both these statements were taken out of context, and in those 
pages HPB makes quite clear the fundamental mass-energy relationships in many 
of her direct statements of an occult nature.  See some corroborative SD 
references at:
http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html

Even though HPB quoted these scientists as apparent confirmations, she 
actually used their almost right, but essentially wrong statements, coming 
from their materialistic reductive viewpoint, as stepping stones enabling her 
to explain the real occult nature of the particular subject they were 
considering and falsely pontificating on. 

LHM

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.