Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00485)

SUBJECT: Muehlegger on "The falacy of Theosophical reincarnation"??

In the posting below Muehlegger titles it "The falacy of Theosophical 
reincarnation" and yet actually writes very little directly on 
reincarnation (Theosophical or otherwise) or why it is to be 
considered a "fallacy."

And take the following two extracts from Muehlegger's post:

(1) "The more recent Ganzfeld theorie in spite that it has initially 
been discovered and experimented with in the context of 
parapsychology allows for a non-dualistic universe and therefore is 
at ods with a lot of the older parapsychological and sprirutualistic 
world views."

(2) "Astral projection means the same as OBE, often, however, the 
term has been used to refer to the separation of the astral from the 
physical body, and in this sense one has to deny the reality of 
astral projections or/and reincarnation."

No doubt, these are interesting statements but one fails to see 
anything in these statements except sheer assertion. What reasoning 
and/or evidence might support these vague generalizations the reader 
is left to guess at. Muehlegger provides nothing whatsoever that 
would make these bare assertions even halfway understandable.

It appears that Muehlegger is quite often content with jumping around 
in a superficial way from one subject to the next subject...to the 
next subject.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc


Brigitte Muehlegger wrote:
> The more recent Ganzfeld theorie in spite that it has initially 
been 
> discovered and experimented with in the context of parapsychology 
> allows for a non-dualistic universe and therefore is at ods with a 
lot of 
> the older parapsychological and sprirutualistic world views.
> 
> My own position is that we live in the illusion that we are a 
separate 
> self. Blavatsky's 19th century Theosophy however just like the 
> Renaisance hermetists and Kaballists in Europe in the 16th century, 
> claims instead there is "an undestructable Monad."
> Long practice at meditation can also dispel the illusion a 
separate self. 
> 21th century science seems to be coming to the same conclusion - 
that 
> the idea of a separate conscious (undestructable Monad ) is false.
> Traditional Parapsychology, has been going quite the other way as 
the 
> conclusions that can be evolved out of the new Ganzfeld theorie. 
> Traditional Parapsychology was trying to prove that consciousness 
> really does have power; that our minds can reach out and "do" 
things, 
> not only within our own bodies but beyond them as well. In this 
sense it 
> is deeply dualist even while making reference to 
interconnectedness. 
> Parapsychology is often perceived as being more "spiritual" than 
> conventional science. I think it may be quite the other way around. 
> Buddhists instead call this state reached trough 
> meditation "mindfulness".
> 
> For example Theosophy claims: "Each MONAD is a mirror of every 
> other. They are "immortal centers of force" 
> 
> Now this is dualism at best. one is not talking here about ordinary 
force 
> but according to 19th century Theosophy about a supposed "special" 
> form of it that is not recognized by physicists, a 
spiritual "force." (Also 
> called "Vril" in the Secret Doctrine)
> 
> The most obvious objection to this argument is that there is no 
such 
> thing as such "force,"(expecially if called "electric" force as in 
the SD 
> chapter on "THE COMING FORCE." and we are back to some form of 
> materialism here.
> 
> If the expression, "force" here really referred to energy of some 
> kind, it would have to be quantifiable. It would then be entirely 
> possible to select a unit of this energy, and it would not be 
absurd 
> to ask such questions as "Into how much heat or electricity can the 
> force now present in this person being converted?" It would be 
> possible to convert spiritual "force" into kinetic or chemical 
energy 
> and it would in principle be possible to establish appropriate 
> transformation formulas. Evidently, Dallas or Leon would regard 
such 
> transformation formulas as a possibility.
> 
> Let us ignore this objection and grant for the sake of discussion 
> that "force" her refers to something that is real but not physical.
> 
> This would not be of any help to the supporters of the argument. 
The 
> conservation principle has been shown by physicists to hold only 
for 
> physical energy. If there is a nonphysical energy, we have no right 
> whatever to say that the conservation principle applies to it. 
> Incidentally, if we allow the concept of this "force," there would 
be 
> no reason to disallow a concept of "spiritual entropy"; and just as 
> usable physical energy is constantly lost, so the same might well 
be 
> true of spiritual energy.
> 
> Even if we waive all these objections, the argument would still 
prove 
> nothing to the point. The conservation of physical energy does not 
> guarantee the continued, much less the eternal, existence of 
> particular entities. It is quite consistent with the destruction of 
> houses, mountains, stars, and of course plants and animal bodies. 
> What evidence is there that if our minds were indeed composed of 
> spiritual energy, and if this energy were indestructible, that our 
> individual minds exist for ever? It appears that versions of the 
> argument had already some currency in the eighteenth century, quite 
a 
> long time before the first formulation of conservation principles 
by 
> physicists. 
> 
> Astral projection means the same as OBE, often, however, the term 
has 
> been used to refer to the separation of the astral from the 
physical 
> body, and in this sense one has to deny the reality of astral 
projections 
> or/and reincarnation.
> 
> Krishnamurti also kept repeating that he didn't believe in 
reincarnation.
> 
> 
Bri.