Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00214)

In a message dated 06/23/04 9:23:15 AM, stevestubbs@yahoo.com writes:

>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>> The final physical form of any object would be considered as its "rupa."
>
>Yes.
>
>> Why would such a manufactured 
>> item like a computer need a pre structural rupa?
>
>You are not an engineer. One cannot build a computer without first 
> figuring out what it will look like. The rupa has to be 
>conceptualized before it can be manifested.

Fact is that not only am I a graduate Chemical Engineer, and a physical 
chemist specializing in dye color chemistry, but also a mechanical and electrical 
engineer, besides having been a product designer of highly automated textile 
machinery for some years during the 50's, an expert on motion picture special 
effects and animation during the 60's, as well as one of the pioneers in 
development of digital computer graphics and computer animation and movie special 
effects systems during the late 70's and early 80's. In addition, I am the in
ventor of 3-D cartoon, animation, and motion picture camera systems, as well as 
the world's first automatic motion capture systems used in Disney-type 
animation. I think that's enough to tell me how to design and build almost anything 
under the sun. 

Since you insist that the image in my mind, the renderings of a product 
design or the blueprints for the structure of a mechanical system or form, is 
equivalent to the astral body field or "rupa" that precedes the formation of 
organic forms of life -- thereby implying that a computer form is equivalent to a 
human form with respect to its genesis -- there's no point in arguing with such 
naive and illogical reasoning. 

In any event, I suggest you read fully my original comments before making 
these totally off the wall remarks based on my questions taken out of context. 

To set the record straight, I did ask you (not in so many words) whether you 
were confusing the Astral body of an organic form -- (that is a field of 
energy on a coadunate but not consubstantial, although higher order or level of 
hyperspace, that coenergetically [electromagnetically] guides the formation of 
the analogous physical form) -- with the blueprints and structural renderings of 
a man or machine made object composed of hand or machine assembled physical 
structures and sub structures. 

As I see that you still insist on this conflation of computer genesis with 
the genesis of living organisms -- I suppose, however, it could be one way of 
looking at teleportation, in a more or less twisted sense... Since, I could 
build a computer from the blueprint or image rupa in my mind here in New York, 
deconstruct it, move to China, and using the image form (or "rupa," as you call 
it) in my mind, reconstruct the computer there. I don't think, however, that 
this mental rupa could be considered in the same category as the Astral form 
or arupa of a living organic body -- which are directly coenergetically linked 
holographically through an astro- and electrochemical genetic encoding, and 
need no intermediate mechanical translator-constructor or builder... Although 
the processes leading to the different categories of products could be 
considered as somewhat analogous. 

>> Since a computer, being an 
>> unconscious artifactual assemblage of equally unconscious sub 
>> structures composed of 
>> physical atoms, doesn't grow by a process of self assemblage
>
>Man adds the manas to the other six principles. This is 
>theoretically true of other inanimate objects, except that the manas 
>added may not be human.

I can't see how that response comes anywhere near relating to the out of 
context statement above. What has manas got to do with the fact that a computer 
does not grow by a process of self assemblage (like conscious organic life 
forms do)? And what is the connection implied by saying the "manas added" (?) -- 
"may not be human"? Since when can a non human, and specifically, a non 
living inorganic one, have a "thinking principle" or Manas, or any other of the 
six principles (Atma, representing the all inclusive spirit, not being a true 
principle according to theosophy)? Such simplistic comments make no sense to me 
at all. 

>> In fact, all the above statements, with respect to rupas, seems to 
>> be a most illogical assemblage of nonsense that has little basis in the 
>> theosophical teachings outlined in the Secret Doctrine. In fact, from a 
>> metaphysically sound point of view, it blows the whole subsequent 
>> discussion, with respect to teleportation and occult processes of 
>> materialization, etc., into a cocked hat. 
>
>No, the only thing that has been blown lately is the ABC theory. 

Very intelligent answer. Instead of speaking to the question or countering 
the statement with a logical denial, you bring in a non sequitur on an ad 
hominem level by making a negative comment about a theory of mine that has nothing 
to do with the subject under discussion. 

But, now that you bring it up, I would like to hear how my ABC theory has 
been "blown lately" -- and by whom? Be interesting to know how such a supposedly 
non falsifiable (by conventional objective scientific methods) 
multidimensional unified field hypothesis similar to string/M-brane theory -- yet going much 
deeper and including the relationship between consciousness and matter while 
being perfectly consistent with the synthesis of relativity and quantum 
theories as well as with theosophical metaphysics in the SD and the "formulas" for 
Cosmogenesis in the Book of Dzyan -- can be "blown" or disproved? 

Maybe you'd like to tackle it. I'm all ears, and have been waiting for the 
past ten years for any of the hundreds of physicists I have been corresponding 
with, as well as Masons, Occultists and Theosophists, to come up with such a 
disproof (or, alternatively, to suggest an experiment to prove it). Who 
knows, you may be the one to win the grand prize. Any disproof which in turn must 
prove something else, is a very worthwhile goal in science. In any event, 
ABC, since it includes both consciousness and matter as two sides of a single 
reality, is still the most consistent "grand unified field theory" around -- in 
lieu of a better one -- which, if it exists, will make me as happy as a bug in 
a rug. :-) 

>> Therefore, how can you justify conflating the human body -- and its 
>> so called pre formative "rupa," that is actually the astral form which 
>> precedes the physical ... 
>
>Everything which has a form (rupa) has a form (rupa).

That makes a lot of sense. It's like saying anyone who has a body has a 
body. Very profound observation. Especially when it's based on half a sentence 
taken out of context. :-)

>> that make up the objects themselves. 
>> 
>> all this talk of actual teleportation 
>> of real objects and their dematerialization and materialization is 
>> just a lot of speculative whistling in the wind, and a waste of time.
>
>No, the ABC theory is a waste of time. That objects can be 
>disintegrated is what your beloved theosophy teaches. It is in the 
>SD. Whether it is true or not is yet to be determined.

Why don't you stop this childish digging at my ABC theory to answer 
statements (again taken out of context) you don't like or take personally, and come up 
with some logical comments and references that confirm your own ideas about 
the subject being discussed? I take it from your sarcastic remarks that you do 
not think theosophy is a worthwhile teaching that warrants being devoted to 
studying its metaphysics and trying to confirm it through direct intuitive 
experience, as well as indirect reasonable thinking. Even so, what makes you think 
I accept every theory that theosophy puts forth with any sort of blind belief 
without thoroughly considering all its aspects and testing it out for myself 
through intuition tempered by reason (as all the Master metaphysicians 
recommend)? 

As for the talk about dematerialization and materialization being a waste of 
time... It is, if it is based on second hand or hearsay evidence, and can 
never lead to any definite proof one way or the other. All such pointless talk 
can do is generate endless arguments between the believers and the non believers 
or skeptics. 

As for myself, I have actually experienced a dematerialization and 
rematerialization among a number of observers who all attested to its authenticity... 
But, I'm still not too sure whether It was a real object I saw, a holographic 
projection, or I was mesmerized (or doped) into believing I saw something that 
wasn't actually there. (I also know of certain incense sticks whose smoke has 
a psychedelic effect.) In India, where everyone burns incense, it is a common 
practice to mix poppy or cannabis oil with the aromatic flower oils. During 
the 60's when I was experimenting with the chemistry of psychedelic 
substances, I experienced such "contact highs" or anomalous hallucinatory experiences 
without ever ingesting or burning the chemicals being analyzed. Did you ever 
hear of the efficacy of aroma therapy? Even smelling a full grown, unfertilized 
(sinsemilla) marijuana bud can give some sensitive people a psychedelic 
experience. (I am one of them.:-) So, arguing about the reality or fakery of other 
peoples reported experiences of psychic phenomena is about as useful as 
arguing about religion or the existence of God.

Leon