Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00277)

In a message dated 03/11/02 9:17:46 AM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>What have "Suprstring/M-brane theories" to do with REINCARNATION, AND 
>WHERE DO YOU SEE MODERN SCIENCE CLAIMING REINCARNATION EXISTS ?

Where did I say that? All I said was that the leading edge theories of 
science are finally getting closer to verifying the multidimensional field 
theories of theosophy. If those theories are eventually proven true by 
science -- then, it is would also become possible that the concepts of 
"mirrored monads" and reincarnation, that depends on these field theories 
(see my ABC theory and chakrafield diagrams for a simplified symbolic view of 
the logical field involution geometry, topology and mechanics) might also be 
true... 

If so, however, reincarnation and past lives would still remain beyond 
science to either prove or disprove -- since such subjective, states can only 
be verified by individual subjective experience -- which conventional 
reductive, materialistic science still does not fully recognize as valid 
observation (which, for them, must be subject to experimentally repeatable 
verification)... Although some scientists are beginning to admit that such a 
subjective evidential approach, along with the acceptance that consciousness 
is an inherent aspect of the primal zero-point source (along with its 
"spinergy") may be the only way to eventually explain consciousness as well 
as its coadunate but not consubstantial (transcendental multidimensional) 
field linkages with mass-energy fields, or phenomenal matter

Soon, however, the impasse experienced by all scientists in trying to solve 
the "hard problems" (explaining the "experience" of consciousness, brain-mind 
"binding" or linkage, etc. ) using existing scientific" theories, will force 
their full acceptance of subjective evidence -- as well as completely change 
all the current scientific paradigms to include a metaphysics similar to that 
of theosophy -- as HPB predicted would happen by the end of the 20th century 
(and as I predict, not only has already started happening, but soon will be 
made completely evident to everyone -- perhaps, before the end of the next 
decade -- by the introduction of an entirely new energy and space propulsion 
technology based on the final new "paradigm" of science, or the metaphysical 
synthesis of relativity, superstring and quantum physics ("M" theory). 

So, as usual, you continue to take questions or statements challenging your 
skeptical theories and materialistic opinions out of context, make your own 
interpretation of their meanings or intentions, and avoid answering directly 
by going off on tangents and sidestepping the issues. I wonder how many 
others who follow (or skim, as I do:-) your voluminous and repetitious mail, 
are getting tired of your trying to convince everyone that your negative 
claims based on the opinions and interpretations of others are valid 
disproof's of HPB's metaphysics? ... Although, she clearly stated that 
everything in the SD was to be taken as theoretical, and should be seriously 
questioned by each student through individual "self devised and self 
determined efforts"... Implying, the need for deep study and meditation to 
attain spiritual knowledge that only can be ascertained subjectively, each 
for oneself -- with no trust in second hand opinions or theories -- whether 
posited by HPB, Buddha, Krishna (although their guidance might be very 
helpful), myself, or yourself. 

Accordingly, some of us could very well be satisfied that we have reached 
such understandings and knowledge through direct experience by a combination 
of intuition coupled with reason... But, how could we "prove" such subjective 
knowledge to others -- and especially, to biased and prejudiced skeptics who 
come to the table armed with non sequitur "objective" scientific theories or 
authoritative opinions of others that have no relationship to the subjective 
processes, ideas or theories being discussed by those who may know what they 
are talking about through first hand mental [or psychical] experience, 
coupled with logical analysis, hypothesis and synthesis? 

So, from my own point of view, all I can say is... No matter what historical, 
authoritative, or so called "reductive scientific" theories are behind them 
-- your "pseudo scientific" opinions about the invalidity of HPB's 
metaphysics -- 
which includes; 

1) its "coadunate but not consubstantial" (3+7 fold) field theory and 
their extrapolations; 
2) the universality of individual consciousness centered on their 
coadunate zero-points (that are everywhere) within and through all these 10 
multidimensional fields (as explained by M-brane theory); 
3) the "eternality" of the highest (near infinite frequency) zero (laya) 
point energies and their individualized fields (as explained by Superstring 
theories); 
4) the ability to retain and transfer vibratory information between all 
these fields throughout their individual lifetimes, which length would depend 
on their energy or frequency phase level (as explained by quantum 
electrodynamics theories); 
5) the apparent separation (and coenergetic linkages) between 
consciousness (or spirit), mind, and physical body through all seven of their 
coenergetic field aspects; 
6) the unity of energy (light) and mass (as verified by E=mc^2); 
7) the wave-particle nature of the physical universe (as verified by 
relativity, quantum, photo electricity, string theories, etc., etc., etc.) 

-- are dead wrong ... Period.

LHM
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

>--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>> In a message dated 03/10/02 3:01:44 PM, bri_mue@y... writes:
>> 
>> >The Monad emerges from its state of spiritual and intellectual uncon-
>> >sciousness; and [ ... ] gets directly into the plane of Mentality. 
>> >But there is no place in the whole universe with a wider margin, or a 
>> >wider field of action in its almost endless gradations of perceptive 
>> >and apper-ceptive qualities, than this plane, which has in its turn an
>> >appropri-ate smaller plane for every "form", from the "mineral" monad 
>> >up to the time when that monad blossoms forth by evolution into the 
>> >DIVINE moNAD. But all the time it is still one and the same Monad, 
>> >differing only in its incarnations, throughout its ever succeeding 
>> >cycles of par-tial or total obscuration of spirit, or the partial or 
>> >total obscuration of matter-two polar antitheses-as it ascends into 
>> >the realms of mental spirituality, or descends into the depths of 
>> >materiality." (SD)
>> >
>> >However this remains an unexplained and unproven fallacy at best.
>> 
>> The use of the words "unproven fallacy" implies that you "know" for a 
>> that the above quote is a "fallacy." If such is the case, what is your 
>> fact "proof" that such a theory is false? Do you, or does modern 
reductive 
>> material science have a better (proven) theory of the origin of the 
Universe, 
>> its fundamental laws, its unified fields, and all entities and forces 
within it? 
>> 
>> It seems, from my view, that theosophy has a much more consistent and 
>> parsimonious theory covering the origin and evolution of everything 
>> (including psi phenomena and the origin and nature of consciousness) that 
>> conventional science is yet to approach even near to -- except by a few 
>> pariah scientists working at its leading edges of Suprstring/M-brane 
>> theories (which are coming very close to the multidimensional field theory 
>> of theosophy -- as clearly described by HPB in the SD). 
>> 
>> LHM