Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00415)

In a message dated 03/22/02 4:20:39 PM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>Leonmaurer: "Where did I ever mention that Casteneda was my 
>inspiration?"
> 
>Bri.:You mentioned Carlos Casteneda several times , including the 
>claim in your earlier postings that you yourself are a "shaman." 
>In the link you presented you write that your theory is among others 
>synthesised from "teachings of H. B. Blavatsky and the astromagnetic 
>visions and metaphysical teachings of the Yaqui Indian sorcerer, Don 
>Juan"

Put back in context, all that meant was that their consistent metaphysics 
gave me the inspiration (over 30 years ago) to search for a logical and 
mathematically (geometrically and topologically) consistent scientific theory 
that would explain how the visual system (as a general case for all sensory 
experiences of consciousness) worked -- in spite of modern science's 
inability to use its currently accepted reductive material scientific 
theories to explain it. Also, the "hard problems" of explaining the 
experience or "qualia" of consciousness and its mechanisms, posed by Chalmers 
almost ten years ago, is still unanswered by current quantum or relativity 
physics theories -- even though those problems have become one of the most 
important new studies of theoretical and practical science -- with thousands 
of papers and millions of words written on it without any reasonable or 
consistent answers.

As for my being a "Shaman," that appellation was given me (perhaps tongue in 
cheek) by my associates some years ago -- since my healing techniques, which 
invariably appear to work (although purely psychological, between us "fakirs" 
:-), also appears to be some sort of shamanistic "magic" to the laymen who 
experience or observe it. 

However, that has nothing to do with my serious (albeit "amateur") scientific 
work in clarifying the laws and mechanisms of conscious perception. But, 
then, Newton was also an amateur scientist when he discovered gravity and 
established the laws of motion (using the calculus he invented) that explain
ed it -- as was Da Vinci and Galileo, among other promethians of science who 
weren't paid for their discoveries. :-)
>
>http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
>
>The term "superstrings" has noting to do with Blavatsky by the way. 
>And it is also just a "term" that is borrowed from science but 
>appropriated in your case in an occult version, including a chakra 
>chart, just like other esotericists have borrowed terms from science. 
>(And of course besides superstrings there are also "twisters" 
>and "spiners")

Who said Blavatsky or anyone eles had or has any knowledge of "superstrings"? 
(Which word, incidentally, has np meaning, except that it describes a 
synthesis of the six separate string theory viewpoints -- now known as 
M-brane theory.) So, what's wrong with saying that superstring/M-brane 
theory has come close to verifying both my theory of ABC and the (six 
viewpoint) metaphysics of HPB (which seem to be consistent with each other, 
even if coincidentally)? 

What credentials or scientific theory do you have to deny any of that? Also, 
please tell us what "twisters" and "spiners" have to do with anything you are 
talking about -- other than another of your cryptic diversionary tactics 
using phony, non sequitur references, to appear as if you know what you re 
talking about, and instill doubt in the minds of your readers about those 
whose ideas you are attacking without any logical or scientific foundation? 

For your information, I came up with the theory of ABC many years before I 
knew anything about M-brane theory (which has only recently brought many 
string theories together into one single eleven dimensional paradigm 
reconciling relativity with quantum physics (that, standing alone, have never 
been consistent with each other)... But which are, however (since the M-brane 
synthesis), fully consistent with the origin and formation of the multi-fold 
(multidimensional) coenergetic fields that I proposed more than 25 years ago 
(which was based on "vibrating strings" or "rays" of force emanating from the 
zero point long before I even heard of the first string theory).

So, what's wrong with my showing the consistency all that has with the 
multi-fold "coadunate but not consubstantial" chakra field theories of 
theosophy and other metaphysical teachings down through history? And, I 
still wonder why it bothers you so much, and triggers such vehemen denials, 
that the theosophical metaphysics might someday be "proved" scientifically 
valid? (Or, are you a "Dugpa" in disguise, working on drowning out theosophy 
and its ethical-moral principles for some purpose or other? :-) 
>
>The chakras in fact belong to Indian Tantra.

If true, so what? FYI, chakras, in the theosophical (and meta-scientific) 
sense, simply refer to the zero-point linkages between and connecting 
adjacent "coadunate but not consubstantial" coenergetic fields (which, 
incidentally, are synonymous with the neurological plexus or seven nerve 
system junctions in the human body).

> Yet just to show how these notions are being mixed up, on the cover 
>of Leadbeater's book "The Chakras" one finds one of J.G.
>Gichtel's illustrations, originally published in 1696, in which 
>circles and astrological signs have been placed on a male figure. 
>Gichtel's main source of inspiration, Jacob Boehme tried to construct 
>a traditional, hermetic system of correspondences between man, the 
>microcosms, and the planetary system, and did so from a heliocentric 
>point of view. Whereas the chakra system of the Tantric yogi consists 
>of a vertical hierarchy. 

It seems to me that you're the one who's "mixed up." What has that got to 
do with anything I theorize or say about its (the chakra systems) consistency 
with what Blavatsky teaches on the same subject? Even though the 
multidimensional "chakrafields" themselves are spherical, the chakra centers 
do, in fact, form in a vertical hierarchy (not because the Tantrists say so) 
-- but due to the triple cycle essential nature of their involution's -- 
which is clearly shown in my symbolic "chakrafield" diagrams, as well as 
thoroughly explained in the Secret Doctrine. (That is, if you know how to 
interpret metaphysical teachings beyond its dead letters and its filtering 
through your material oriented preconceptions.)

>However the original system was that of of six chakras. The earliest 
>literary reference to the yogic physiology of the six chakras and ten 
>nadis is in the eight-century Malati-Madhava by Bhavabhuti.The Hindu 
>tantric schools in whose works the six chakras of hathayogic practice 
>make their earliest appearance are the pascimamnaya or Western 
>Transmission and the Yogini Kaula founded by Matsyendranath, which 
>predate the Trika Kaula reformer Abhinavagupta, who makes veiled 
>allusions to both in his, ca. A.D. 1000, Tantraloka. The number then 
>becomes variable: certain systems describe a system of nine, twelve, 
>or even twenty-seven chakras, of which six extend beyond the top of 
>the head into space. Such early Buddhist work as the Gubyasamaja 
>Tantra (with the Sekoddesa and other commentaries) know of six-limbed 
>(sadanga) batha yoga, but only speak of the four specifically 
>Buddhist chakras. The primacy in this system of four chakras for 
>physiological manipulation in ascetic practices may well go back to 
>the old Upanisadic theories of the four states of consciousness. 
>But the Hindu cosmos has been for at least three thousand years, a 
>fivefold one. It is the Brahmanas that, even as they continue the 
>Vedic discourse of the triune universe, first elaborate the concept 
>of the universe as five fold. And gives rise in the early Taittiriya 
>Uphanishad (2.1), to a hierarchical representation of the five 
>elements in their relationship to the universal man: "From this
>atman verily ether arose; from ether air; from air fire; from fire, 
>water; from water, earth; from earth, herbs; from herbs, food; from 
>food, semen; from semen, Man." This notion of the physical universe as
>an aggregate of the five elements is one that permeates all three 
>metaphysical systems of ancient India; Samkhya, Vedanta, and the 
>Buddhist.

Very interesting, if true... But, again, so what? Actually, our (ABC's, 
HPB's, M-brane) theories of "chakras" (or zero point centers between 
involved, multidimensional transcendental fields) can be broken down into 3, 
4, 5. 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, and more "chakras" (or zero-point field center 
junctions). Does that make any of the above interpretations wrong? 

>The hermetism of Boehme/Gichtel was seven fold. The
>neoplatonic/hermetic system indeed seems the initial source of 
>Blavatskys septenary system. 

Again, all that being true or not -- what does it have to do with new 
theories that are consistent (or not) with the old ones? Also, did HPB ever 
claim that her theories were not based on older teachings of hermetic 
metaphysics? FYI, the seven fold theory is completely consistent with all 
scientific theories of harmonics of both sound and light, as well as with all 
other radiant energies -- being based on fundamental cyclic spin, which is 
the precursor of ALL vibrating energy fields. That would, of course, include 
the "radiant" energies already scientifically proved to exist in the 
zero-point vacuum of apparently "empty" space. How many times do you have to 
hear these "facts" before you give up your unreasonable nd irrational 
denials of theosophical foundational metaphysical ideas as well as of all 
bona fide scientific theories that confirm or are consistent with them? 

>Superstrings are mentioned also in the chanelled Set Material, but 
>for a good history of "zero point" energy atempted aplications see:
> 
> http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

And, that non sequitur reference has already been covered in my previous 
posts... So there's no reason to endlessly repeat myself (in spite of your 
tendency to do so interminably...) Again, I might ask, what ax do you have 
to grind and how many more "guilt by association" arguments do you have to 
repeat to make your point? Which appears to be; Your denigrating of theosophy 
as well as HPB, along with all scientific theories that seem to confirm them 
-- for no apparent reason, as far as I can see, except, perhaps, your own 
pique? (Or, is there a more sinister purpose?)

LHM