Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00487)

In a message dated 11/14/02 9:48:35 AM, brianmuehlbach@yahoo.com writes:

>leonmaurer wrote: less and less sense to anyone who can THINK.

Again, why do you use an out of context remark in a cleverly twisted and 
ambiguous sentence to make a derogatory insinuation? Could this be another 
example of what many of us are complaining about in all your 
anti-theosophical propaganda publications?

>Brian: An intelligent Theosophists who long left this list although (in
>spite of him not being on Theos talk) you keep addressing postings to 
>him, Jerry, wrote me once on the list where he "really" is: "talking to 
>Leon Maurer is like talking to a brick wall, but a prickly one."

>Seeing your post today, I must say Jerry Schueler is right.

My post was a straightforward reply in answer to a cross post of Mauri, who 
included personal comments about me from someone else (GS) on Theos-1. Is 
there anything wrong with my answering his remarks in the manner that I did? 
If you think so, why don't you quote me and present your counter arguments 
like any thoughtful member of this discussion group would do? Besides, what 
has this post to Mauri have to do with your personal opinions about anything 
or anyone?

What post does your remark about today's post refer tol? The negative 
innuendo about it (which you, apparently intentionally, didn't quote here or 
respond to) only adds to the depths of degradation that you are willing to go 
to defend your own prejudices and biases. 

So, is this another of your propaganda ploys -- using, questionable opinions 
of ("credentialed" or those you label as "intelligent") others to back up 
your own ad homonym arguments and prejudicial statements as being factual? 
Or, are you using another of your tiresome innuendo ploys to imply that 
anyone else on this list, besides you and the so called, "intelligent 
theosophists" who left it, are unintelligent? 

Ha, Ha... You are becoming more and more a big joke around here -- where (in 
my opinion) there are quite a few independent thinkers left to talk in
telligently about theosophy -- (without limiting such discussion solely to 
Buddhism, Hinduism or Sufism, etc. as the sole authorities, or to unrelated 
politics, or to non theosophical, philosophical, or scientific arguments over 
opinionated and selective, second hand personalized history -- that conflates 
and confuses the messenger with the message). But, then, you've made it 
perfectly clear that you are no theosophist, or even a philosopher or 
scientist. What a pity that you have to stoop so low as to be here among us 
ignorant theosophists. :-(

Maybe you should set up your own mailing list, limited to your specific 
subject of interest -- instead of cluttering our mailboxes with endless, long 
winded diatribes discrediting theosophy and its teachers that has nothing to 
do with its teachings, objectives, and practices -- that are of particular 
interest to its students. Isn't that what this forum is all about? 

Of course, Jerry has a right to his opinion, for whatever that's worth, but 
if you also think that because someone doesn't agree with your opinions and 
prejudices that such a person is "prickly" -- well, that's your opinion 
(which isn't worth the pixels its printed with. :-) Although, maybe such 
pricks might help in bursting your flimsy bubbles based on the "nattering 
nonsense of negative nabobs" (to borrow a phrase from a notorious dissembling 
American Politician :-) 

>As for "credentials," I know they say yours are close to zero. 

Is this another typical Brian/Bridgitte propaganda technique? Who are 
"They"? And what credentials does anyone need to speak truth? Do your 
credentials verify that what you "know" (about anything you write or say) has 
any semblance of verifiable truth? Why should anyone be forced to accept 
anything as facts, based on anyone else's "credentials" or "authority"? 

> Bhakti Anada Goswhami , I only know him from his letters, made an 
>intelligent impression on me. As for his credentials, I looked them up
>, see below.

Thank you for admitting that your "impressions" are what make you think that 
what other people say or write is the unnassailable truth that can't be 
argued against. If someeone says, "I think so and so" -- that's an 
opinion... And, anyone has the right to say, "I think you are wrong" -- and 
give his reasons for so saying. 

Since when does one's credentials have anything to do with the truth or 
falsity of what one says or thinks? Einstein's scientific credentials were 
impeccable, as was Newton's and Heisenberg's, etc. How come there are many 
scientists today, with equally impeccable credentials (as well as those with 
none at all to speak of :-) who disagree with them on direct scientific 
experimental or mathematical grounds? Is tat why all of them, still refer to 
their agreements or disagreements as being "Theories" rather than facts? 

So, who gave you the right to insist on your own infallibility? Especially, 
when you insist on resting your opinions on the fallible opinions of others.

(Snip blurb -- since this is the umpteenth time someone else's 
credentials have been dumped on us to verify Brian/Bridgitte's veracity)

> But he is not "made up" as you ,leonmaurer@a. claim, he is a real 
>person.
> 

Why don't you quote where I "claimed" that BAG was "made up?" Although, I may 
have suspected it -- since I wouldn't put it past you (i.e., if you are the 
same androgenous dissembling "Austrian researcher" who has been drubbing us 
with weakly argued, opinionated and prejudiced anti-theosophical and HPB 
bashing propaganda for the past couple of years.) 

And why are you including the below, non sequitur, self-serving diatribe 
about DC in a letter written as a personal attack on my credibility? What 
have I got to do with Daniel's arguments with you, or yours with him? Does 
this make anything else you say have any semblance of truth? Or, is it 
another of your twisty and tricky propaganda tricks? 

And, I also wonder why you gratuitously left this paragraph in as part of my 
selectively quoted post while not only denigrating by innuendo, but also 
clipping everything else I said that made some theosophical sense -- (which 
might prove that you really have a hatred of theosophy for some devious 
reason of your own that you are not telling us)? 

(Now, I wonder who is really being the pricky tricky one? :-) 

But, don't get me wrong (again). I have no argument about what you, BAG, or 
DC says, true or false, about the authenticity of the Mahatma Letters, or the 
peccadilloes of HPB as a personality. (I think each of you "one tracked 
thinkers" are all beating a dead horse, so to speak.) 

My only interest is in the entire "message" HPB delivered (wherever it came 
from) -- that I have studied comparatively and carefully for more than fifty 
years, correlated it with all disciplines of both western and eastern science 
as far as they can go, and practiced its mysteries and meditations as deeply 
as anyone has gone. (Been OOB more times than I can remember, has an ADE, 
experienced every ASC, etc.) As a result, I found it entirely consistent with 
the teachings of ALL the Great Masters of Wisdom since ancient antiquity. 
Therefore I know what I know, and no false arguments based on faulty 
reasoning, opinions of others, and non sequitur historical diatribes about 
personalities and their supposed machinations, is going to shake me of this 
direct knowledge. And, as I see it (in conjunction with added correlation's 
at the cutting edges of modern physical and metaphysical sciences) this 
presentation of fundamental theosophy is entirely valid as a proper teaching, 
"In the language of this age," to bring the world toward a better 
understanding of the unity of all beings, and the necessity for a universal 
brotherhood on Earth (which includes the Earth itself). 

The separations and depredations brought on by organized Buddhism, Hinduism, 
Moslemism, Hebrewism, Christianism, and all the other sectarianisms 
(including organized Theosophism) with their sub-schools and sub-sub 
schools, along with the false conclusions of reductive science -- have to 
become things of the past... Suitable for historians to talk and argue about, 
but dead issues to the coming brotherhood of Humanity, or if peaceful 
coexistence of all sentient beings is ever to become a universal reality. 

If you have any disagreements with this, I would be glad to discuss theosophy 
and its aims and purposes with you on a strictly philosophical or 
metaphysical level without bringing in any considerations of personalities or 
"authorities." 

I am not in favor of killing the messenger before one fully comprehends the 
message -- as you seem to be trying to do in an excessively fanatical manner. 


BTW -- even if HPB stole her ideas and theories from all the ancient and 
modern teachers of the hidden mysteries (including Hermes, Pythagorus, Plato, 
Buddha, Lao Tse, Vyasa, Patanjali, etc.) -- why send everyone to them to 
learn new languages and dig it out for themselves, covering the same tracks 
that Blavatsky did -- when all of it was so clearly and accurately 
synthesized in the SD (along with other explanatory writings of HPB and 
associated scriptural confirmations) in the common language that most 
everyone of a thoughtful mind in the world, today, can understand? 

Assuming that you agree with the Vedantist and Buddhist sectarian and 
separatist teachings of BAG and GS as well as with most popular aspects of 
modern reductive science (if not any other "religion") -- don't you think 
that your hatred of HPB (the great initial synthesizer of all these 
disparate, contradictory, one tracked, and separate religions, sciences and 
philosophies) has gone much too far, and is, in effect, doing a great 
disservice to humanity at large? From this point of view, you should be 
ashamed of yourself. And, maybe, you, and your cohorts should also stop 
pounding on all us poor, deluded and misled theosophical "fundamentalists." 
(Apropos, I wonder if your "separatists" or us "synthesists" have the right 
to be labeled as such? :-) In any event, I'm satisfied that the ultimate 
truth, as close as we'll ever get to it (barring faith in the "revelations" 
of one's favorite guru or God) is in theosophy's corner -- where intuition 
and reason are the only Gods worth listening to.

> http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9
>--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>
>> >Brian : I posted clearly WHY the letters where typed in
>> >all caps, I decided to do the most fair I could think of , give this
>> obviously expert person, a voice. Without compromising his the 
>identity. > >Also Ars Inquisitor Daniel C. Caldwell showed not to be 
>capable to address ANY of the issuis brought up by B.A.G. Meaning one
>must conclude Daniel C. Caldwell must really know he is defending a 
>cococted fake in case of The Mahatma letters. In any case since 
>B.A.G .has come forward and identified himself, I have placed two of 
>his letters On-line:
>> >
>> > http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/lettersed.html
>> >
>> > http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/resp.html
>