Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00222)

In a message dated 06/24/04 2:28:02 AM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>In reference to the statement by Leon at:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17062
>and Bart's several postings, I give below three quotes 
>from H.P. Blavatsky on materialization of physical objects. 
>More could be given plus material from THE MAHATMA LETTERS.
>
>Daniel
>
>==================================================
>
>QUOTE I
>
>Inert matter may be, in certain cases and under 
>certain conditions, disintegrated, passed through
>walls, and recombined. . . .
>
>ISIS UNVEILED, II, 589.

Certainly this is true... But, the qualifiers are broad enough to make this 
statement highly questionable as referring to any mystical or psychic effect. 
What is the nature of that inert matter? Is it gas, liquid, or finely divided 
solid? What is the composition of the walls, their chemical permeability?  
Osmosis goes on continuously in nature, where inert matter passes through a 
permeable membrane. Does "disintegrated" mean dissolved, saponified, pulverized, 
vaporized, etc.?  

>========================================================
>
>QUOTE II
>
>It is through the power to see and use these "abstract" forms
>that the Adept is able to evolve before our eyes any object
>desired — a miracle to the Christian, a fraud for the
>materialist. Countless myriads of forms are in that ideal sphere, and 
>matter exists in the astral light, or even in the atmosphere, that 
>has passed through all forms possible for us to conceive of. All that 
>the Adept has to do is to select the "abstract form" desired, then to 
>hold it before him with a force and intensity unknown to the men of 
>this hurried age, while he draws into its boundaries the matter 
>required to make it visible. How easy this to state, how difficult to 
>believe; yet quite true, as many a theosophist very well knows. . . . 
>
>H.P.B.'s COLLECTED WRITINGS, IX, p. 239

This idea has been adequately covered in my earlier posts. But, even here, 
the only thing that is "made visible" by reflection of light is the outer 
surface or "form" of the object being manifest. Therefore, this is still an 
illusion of solidity -- since there is no need to recreate the inner structures of 
the object itself. It's quite obvious that the outer "form"of any material 
object is not equivalent to the entire solid inner "body" of the object itself -- 
which may be composed of entirely different substances than the single side 
by side atoms that compose its outer surface and which governs its reflectivity 
only.  

>=============================================================
>
>QUOTE III
>
>"Is Creation Possible for Man?"
>
>This whole article by Blavatsky is EXTREMELY
>RELEVANT to Leon's and Bart's comments on
>the cup and saucer phenomenon.
>
>The link to the whole article is as follows:
>
>http://blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/IsCreationPossibleForMan.htm

Unless one has completely blind faith in the absolute credibility of a 
propounder of knowledge, mere assertion by that one of a possibility is notsuf
ficient to convince anyone having a rational mind, of the truth of the assertion.  
Therefore, this article doesn't prove anything, and leaves entirely open both 
Bart's and my take on the subject of materialization and dematerialization.  
Only in that sense, could the article be considered as"EXTREMELY RELEVANT" to 
our comments. On the other hand, even if I could say I proved HPB to be right 
by having experienced such a creative process myself, that still wouldn't be 
sufficient to convince anyone else.  

Leon