Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00304)

In a message dated 03/13/02 2:40:24 PM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>It is just a mental fantasy of Dallas/Daniel/Leon, a non verifiable 
>construct, although it could be used for meditiative purposes.

If that's your considered opinion, please inform us of the verifiable 
evidence it is based upon. It would also be interesting to hear how you 
think it could be used for meditation? (Especially when meditation is the 
means to arrive at ultimate truth.) 

>The problem is not the fantasy itself, but that these fantaies are 
>used to claim "FACTS of NATURE" and "SCIENCE" which they are not. 
>These are just religious beliefs, and after me asking for 4 days 
>about this, still NO proof by either Dallas, Daniel, or Leon, have 
>been presented. 

Apparently, you can't recognize a scientific explanation when you see one. 
How many times do I have to explain that my scientific theory of ABC is 
entirely consistent with both theosophical theories of metaphysical science 
and all modern academic theories of physical science (from relativity and 
quantum physics to Superstring/M-brane physics)? 


>It seems from the above that some of the greatest misconceptions 
>about Theosophy are held by theosophists themselves.

Speak for yourself. Since you appear to know very little about the real 
metaphysical scientific roots of theosophy, and what you do know appears to 
be much garbled, I suggest you learn a lot more about it, along with serious 
meditation on what it teaches -- before you make such blatantly unfounded 
judgments about people you know nothing about, or what's in their minds. 

>Already Renaisance "theosophists" like John Dee and others 
>practiced what they called "natural" magic, to influence the 
>spiritual "forces" that "operate" this "universe," that wasn't any 
>worser or better then Theosophy today, that uses about the same 
>terms as these Renaisance magicians and hermetists did. 

I never knew that theosophy and its metaphysics, as studied today, had 
anything to do with the "practice" of magic. And even if it did, what does 
that prove? How do you know that those old time "theosophists" didn't lnow 
what they were doing? Can you read their minds, as well as ours? :-)

>Exept Theosophists are not even practicing anything (least of all 
>their first concept, they don't have the means for it, but also not 
>the 3e) and use terms like "forces" "Vril" "universe" "Magnetic" and 
>so on without a sence for reality other then symbolic.

How do you know what "theosophists" know or don't know about reality? What do 
the "terms" they use, which are common to both theosophy and conventional 
science, have to do with what one knows about their meanings? Besides, 
aren't ALL words nothing more than symbols? 

Of course, if your understanding of reality is purely materialistic, 
emotionally reactive, or based on what little you think you know about 
metaphysical or physical science (you'd be amazed by how many metaphysical 
questions can't be answered by reductive physical science) -- then It's o
bvious where you are coming from ... Accordingly, perhaps, you'd be much 
better off sticking with historical reporting, and leaving the rest of 
"reality" for those who do know what they are talking about.

So, all that your recent diatribes denying the metaphysics of theosophy 
appear to be -- is a lot of opinionated blather that makes much sound and 
fury, but is entirely empty of any logical analysis or hypothesis -- other 
than denigrating denials of theosophical theories of universal reality -- 
using ad homonym arguments supported by questionable "authorities," false 
comparisons, sly innuendoes, and without any real understanding of the 
scientifically logical metaphysics behind the theosophical concepts of 
"universal reality" (as fully and consistently described by HPB) ... Which, 
essentially, must involve and evolve as "coadunate but not consubstantial" 
Unified Fields -- starting from a scientifically valid concept of the 
zero-point and its surrounding spin-energy ... And which, upon emanation, 
radiation, and expansion or inflation, is subject to fundamental laws of 
electricity and periodicity, as well as the derivative laws of relativity, 
quanta, and String/Membranes. Thus, entirely "scientific" in essence, and in 
fact. (What more "verification" would stop your insatiable need to 
repeatedly denigrate theosophy and HPB with every wild innuendo, ad homonym, 
and false argument you can dream up?)

Therefore, the seven fold (energy field) nature and the concept of rnified 
Field Theory -- as described thoroughly in the SD, and affirmatively 
interpreted, from a modern scientific point of view, in my Astro Biological 
Coenergetic field theory. 

Since such a theory, being consistent with both relativity and quantum 
theories (as they are synthesized by M-brane theory), is subject to 
falsification -- I challenge anyone to study all the many letters I've 
written on the subject in this forum, the Journal of Consciousness 
Study-online forum, the Quantum Mind-online forum, and my papers on the 
web... Compare them with the metaphysics described in the SD. And then, come 
up with an alternate scientific theory that disproves the ABC theory -- along 
with HPB's metaphysics that are entirely consistent with it. (Admittedly, 
that's a tough job -- since you would also have to falsify 
Superstring/M-brane theory -- which, incidentally, verifies the multifold (3, 
7 or 10) "coadunate but not consubstantial" field concepts of theosophical 
metaphysics.:-) 

And, if those theories of consciously interrelated and unified fields and the 
fundamental principles they rest on, are sound -- then, all the subsequent 
subordinate and derivative concepts concerning the nature of transcendental 
spiritual, mental, astral and physical realities and their interactions, are 
also valid. In fact, theosophy has fully explained all the questions of 
"consciousness" on every level, that conventional reductive science hasn't 
come even close to understanding, let alone explaining -- on any level -- 
other than it's neural (physical) correlates, which tells us nothing.

So let's stop this incessant attacking of theosophical principles, its 
metaphysical theories and its teacher, HPB -- since you've already lost the 
war you started, a dozen times already.

LHM

P.S. I didn't write this solely to answer the above diatribe, but for the 
benefit of all the "thinking" theosophists, philosophers and scientists who 
also subscribe to this forum in order to learn something worthwhile ... And, 
especially for beginners who might be fooled (after reading such baloney) 
into thinking that theosophy, as it is understood from deep study of and 
meditation on its teachings in the Secret Doctrine, can be easily refuted -- 
either logically, scientifically or metaphysically -- and, certainly, not at 
all by any of the sort of fallacious arguments used above (and in many other 
letters by the same writer on this and other theosophical forums).

http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/yinyang.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/HPB-ONHOWSTUD.SD.html