Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00002)

Daniel,

It's really quite pointless (for me) to discuss theosophical concepts with 
anyone who blindly accepts everything written about it by its promulgators as 
being absolutely true -- since it comes from the mouth of supposed authorities, 
or people one accepts as such... A method of learning that HPB said was an 
improper way to approach theosophy -- which should be taken with a grain of 
salt, or as a theory only, and questioned thoroughly, until one has subjectively 
proven it to one's own satisfaction through serious and protracted self devised 
and self determined study and practice. 

It's a fact that HPB never claimed to be an authority and said that students 
should never accept anything she said or assertions she made, as more than a 
theory to be studied and, through one's own intuition and reasoning, proven for 
oneself. Many of the statements of HPB in the Secret Doctrine and in much of 
her articles on theosophy, have subtleties of meanings, including 
qualifications and conditions, that go far deeper for the "intuitive student" than is 
apparent to the ordinary reader on their surface. In some cases a method of 
psychological suggestion is used, obvious to the intuitive or initiated reader, 
that is designed to convince the unintuitive or uninitiated of the validity of 
the occult teaching without actually exposing its underlying mechanisms -- 
which may be dangerous for them to know. 

Incidentally, I was initiated into the mysteries of occultism at a very early 
age by my alchemist-freemason father, and came to the Secret Doctrine at a 
distinct advantage over the ordinary student with no such background. My first 
teaching in occult study (which was later contradicted by my science teachers 
:-) was to never accept anything I read as being valid or true, no matter what 
the credentials or qualifications of the writer, until I can test it for 
myself using a number of techniques (not important to describe here). The second 
and third lessons were, "Never tell your left hand what your right hand is 
doing," and "Always tell the truth to imply a lie." (I'll leave it to HPB's 
"intuitive student" to figure out what those instructions mean, and how she followed 
them in constructing her blinds for the casual or non-initiated reader. :-)

Therefore, to argue about the belief in (or not), or discuss the probability 
or actuality of psychic phenomena based on hearsay evidence and misinterpreted 
or qualified and conditional statements made by HPB and/or her Masters, is a 
total waste of time and effort -- which, on my part, is devoted to 
understanding the actual working of the occult processes from a scientific and 
metaphysical point of view -- without relying on the statements or opinions of anyone... 
Especially, those who base their convictions entirely on the written word, 
along with hearsay evidence of observed psychic phenomena by possibly gullible 
or prejudiced witnesses -- which as I said before, are notoriously unreliable. 

Such self satisfied or preconditioned people are too fixed in their ways to 
talk to rationally about the real basis of theosophical metaphysics, or about 
the actual processes that make possible psychic phenomena -- that requires, 
first, the examination and elimination of all opposing alternatives, and then, 
the construction of a feasible basis (with reference to the fundamental 
principles) upon which both the creation of the phenomena as well as the genesis of 
the Cosmos rests. As Einstein said, "To find the conditions that make something 
possible, one must first consider, examine and eliminate all conditions that 
make it impossible." He was a true occultist, BTW... And, probably, the 
messenger whose message HPB predicted would appear in 1975 -- the twentieth 
anniversary of his death... Which it did (if you read all the newspapers and news 
magazines of that time). "A word to the wise is sufficient" -- so said the 
Master Thoth-Hermes.

So, please desist this continuing cross examination of my comments (some 
speculative, hypothetic or questioning) that are, in many cases, taken out of the 
context of my overall discussion -- which is generally based on principles of 
metaphysics and their scientific interpretations that you apparently do not 
comprehend the nuances of -- except indirectly through the mouths of your 
accepted authorities and your own personal interpretation of their words. 
Sometimes, these words have nuances and underlying subtleties of meanings, conditions 
and qualifications (as pointed out above and in my previous posts) that go far 
deeper than their dead letter forms indicate to the casual reader or 
researcher. 

For the record, let me repeat what I said before... Having started my study 
of theosophy as an agnostic, rather than a believer or disbeliever, I accept no 
statement of theosophical principles or teachings without first testing and 
proving to myself their validity through my own intuition tempered by my 
reason, and confirmed by my personal experience, hands on experiments, or direct 
observation -- unclouded by any biases that I didn't first thoroughly examine and 
subsequently clear from my mind. Therefore, I take it as my right and duty 
to question everything that any theosophical teacher might say -- including HPB 
as well as her alleged Masters -- without harassment from historical 
researchers who bombard me with their quotes... Which, for me, incidentally, have far 
different meanings than is apparent on their dead letter surface.

That is not to say that my tentative conclusions cannot be wrong in some 
respects -- since, it's quite possible that I have missed some important facts 
along the way. I also, will be the first to admit my mistake if such facts are 
brought to my attention and proven to be so to my satisfaction. Therefore, 
it's wise to take any statement I may make or conclusion I reach with the same 
grain of salt you should take HPB's statements. So, if you think I am wrong, 
ask me upon what I base my conclusions, and after hearing them, if you know 
better, point out my error using logic and reason rather than the authority of 
others (whom I know or suspect are downgrading or obfuscating certain critical 
facts that only a true occultist might understand -- by implication or intuition 
coupled with direct experience). 

No personal implications or innuendoes intended, of course. ;-) 

Leon Maurer

In a message dated 06/27/04 4:31:42 AM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>Leon,
>
>
>
>Thanks for your recent posting at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17089
>
>
>
>I am still somewhat puzzled by some of your
>
>statements about materializations.
>
>
>
>In your original statement which I excerpted at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17062
>
>
>
>you make some categorical statements such as:
>
>
>
>================================================
>
>
>
>I seriously doubt that anyone,
>
>including those on the level of a Master
>
>occultist, could actually manifest a physical
>
>cup that someone can drink out of, or
>
>dematerialize such a cup and re-materialize
>
>it at a remote location. 
>
>
>
>================================================
>
>
>
>You go on to assert:
>
>
>
>============================================
>
>
>
>It therefore becomes quite evident that 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... 
>
>
>
>=====================================================
>
>
>
>And you tell your readers:
>
>
>
>======================================================
>
>
>
>If you carefully read "all" the writings of
>
>HPB (as I have) you will find that she has consistently
>
>denied such possibilities....
>
>
>
>=====================================================
>
>
>
>I made several observations and even quoted HPB
>
>on the subject. You have now replied to these
>
>in your posting at:
>
>
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17089
>
>
>
>Before I reply to your specific comments, I want to
>
>give more primary source material that shows that
>
>both HPB and Master KH asserted that they were
>
>able to perform (to quote your words) "actual 
>
>teleportation of real objects and their dematerialization and 
>
>materialization."
>
>
>
>In THE OCCULT WORLD, A.P. Sinnett
>
>writes about the "Pillow Incident" that occured on
>
>Oct. 20, 1880. Note this specific comment by Sinnett:
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>
>
>
>...before starting for the hill, I had penned a few lines of thanks 
>
>for the promise contained in the note then received as described. 
>
>This note I gave to Madame Blavatsky, to despatch by occult 
>
>methods if she had an opportunity. And she carried it in her 
>
>hand as she and my wife went on in advance, in jampans, along the 
>
>Simla Mall, not finding an opportunity until about halfway to our 
>
>destination. Then she got rid of the note, occultism only knows how.
>
>
>
>================================================================
>
>
>
>Regarding this note given by Sinnett to Blavatsky, Master KH
>
>wrote in a note later that same day:
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>
>
>
>". . . your last note. . . was received in my room about half a 
>
>minute after the [akasic] currents for the production of the pillow 
>
>dak had been set ready and in full play."
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>
>
>
>According to KH's own words, he was NOT in Simla at that time
>
>but in a Kashmir Valley.
>
>
>
>Thus the Master KH himself contradicts your statement which
>
>reads:
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>
>
>
>I seriously doubt that anyone,
>
>including those on the level of a Master
>
>occultist, could actually manifest a physical
>
>cup that someone can drink out of, or
>
>dematerialize such a cup and re-materialize
>
>it at a remote location.
>
>
>
>=========================================================
>
>
>
>Now in the incident I am quoting the physical note written by
>
>Sinnett (was according to KH) transported from Simla to KH's room.
>
>
>
>You may still choose to ignore or disbelieve his statement. That of 
>
>course is your choice. 
>
>
>
>Many more examples could be given including material from THE MAHATMA 
>
>LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT.
>
>
>
>One outstanding example is the Vega Incident. For some of the
>
>primary source documents on this teleportation, see:
>
>
>
>http://blavatskyarchives.com/eglinton1.htm
>
>
>
>http://blavatskyarchives.com/gordon3.htm
>
>
>
>http://blavatskyarchives.com/gordon4.htm
>
>
>
>Numerous other examples can be found in Geoffrey A. Barborka's
>
>book H.P. BLAVATSKY, TIBET AND TULKU. See, for example, Chapter
>
>XIII --- Writing by Precipitation, pp. 222-299.
>
>
>
>Also many examples in my own book THE ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME 
>
>BLAVATSKY. Online edition at:
>
>http://theosophical.org/theosophy/books/esotericworld/index.html
>
>
>
>Moving on.
>
>
>
>Regarding your assertion about what HPB denies, below I give
>
>some quotes from one of HPB's letters to the Countess Wachtmeister:
>
>
>
>================================================================
>
>
>
>I have to burn the letter with a stone I have (matches and common
>
>fire would never do), and the ashes caught by the current become more 
>
>minute than atoms would be, and are re-materialized at any distance 
>
>where Master was.....
>
>
>
>Think only (a case with Solovioff at Elberfeld) I sick 
>
>in my bed; a letter of his, an old letter of his received in 
>
>London and torn by me, rematerialised in my own sight, 
>
>I looking at the thing; five or six times in the Russian language, 
>
>in Mahatma K.H.'s handwriting in blue , the words taken from my head, 
>
>the letter old and crumpled travelling slowly alone (even I could not 
>
>see the astral hand of the chela performing the operation) across the 
>
>bedroom, then slipping into and among Solovioff's papers who was 
>
>writing in the little drawing-room, correcting my manuscripts; 
>
>Olcott standing closely by him and having just handled the papers 
>
>looking over them with Solovioff. The latter finding it, 
>
>and like I flash I see in his head in Russian the thought: 
>
>"The old impostor (meaning Olcott) must have put it there!"....
>
>
>
>Suppose a chela receives an order from his Master to precipitate a 
>
>letter....Paper and envelope are materialized before him, and he has 
>
>only to form and shape theideas into his English and precipitate them.
>
>
>
>==================================================================
>
>
>
>Elsewhere HP Blavatksy writes:
>
>
>
>=================================================================
>
>
>
>Here we approach a comprehension of what may have been the course of 
>
>events as regards the production of the mysterious cup and saucer 
>
>described in Mr. Sinnett's book. It is in no way inconceivable that 
>
>if the production of manifestation in matter is the act accomplished 
>
>by what is ordinarily called creation that the power of the human 
>
>will in some of its transcendent developments may be enabled 
>
>to impose on unmanifested matter or chaos, the change which brings it 
>
>within the cognisance of the ordinary human senses. 
>
>==============================================================
>
>
>
>Yet, Leon, apparently it is inconceivable to you.....
>
>
>
>And in light of what I just quoted from HPB, it should be pointed
>
>out that you have conceded that the cup and saucer was really
>
>physical. Therefore, what is the implication of HPB's words just 
>
>quoted?
>
>
>
>Much more could be quoted from H.P. Blavatsky.
>
>
>
>Moving on.
>
>
>
>Let me now briefly look at your most recent replies and make a few
>
>additional comments.
>
>
>
>In light of your initial statement excerpted at
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17062
>
>
>
>I wrote:
>
>
>
>=========================================================
>
>
>
>So Leon, what are you telling us about the cup and saucer
>
>at the picnic? Are you saying that no real physical cup and
>
>saucer was ever dug up by Mr. Henderson? Are you telling
>
>us that what they thought was a real physical cup and saucer
>
>was ONLY a mental "hologram", a thought-form you might say?
>
>
>
>A clarification of this would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>============================================================
>
>
>
>Now your clarification reads:
>
>
>
>============================================================
>
>
>
>No, I said it could have been. But I doubt it in the present case, 
>
>where a real cup was supposedly found, added to the set, and 
>
>presumedly used to serve tea to the new guest who came on the scene.
>
>
>
>However, saying this reminds me that the real cup and saucer could 
>
>have been lost years before (and the tree roots grown over and around 
>
>it) by the owners who may have visited that spot earlier -- since it 
>
>was near a Temple where many picnickers who lived nearby may have 
>
>gone in the past. HPB, being clairvoyant, supposedly, could have 
>
>then "found" the lost items in one of her "brown studies" or trance 
>
>states. Of course I understand this is only a "possibility"
>
>like many of those arguments used by skeptics.
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>
>
>
>I realize that you say "this is only a 'possibility' like many of 
>
>those arguments used by skeptics."
>
>
>
>Nevertheless, I believe this argument of yours is as implausible as 
>
>those skeptical arguments advanced by Bart.
>
>
>
>First of all, your "possibility" only confirms Hyman's statement that
>
>"it is always possible to 'imagine' some scenario....."
>
>
>
>Secondly, your "possibility" is not plausible in light of the 
>
>testimonial evidence of both Sinnett and Olcott.
>
>
>
>Remember what Olcott wrote:
>
>
>
>===========================================================
>
>
>
>================================================
>
>
>
>He found the ground hard and full of small roots of a young cedar
>
>tree near by. These he cut through and pulled up to a depth of say 6
>
>inches, when something white was seen in the black soil; it was dug
>
>out, and lo! a cup decorated in green and gold, exactly matching the
>
>others Mrs. Sinnett's servants had brought.
>
>
>
>===============================================
>
>
>
>And Sinnett reported:
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>
>
>
>The cup and saucer both corresponded exactly, as
>
>regards their pattern, with those that had been
>
>brought to the picnic, and constituted a seventh
>
>cup and saucer when brought back to where we were
>
>to have breakfast. Afterwards, when we got home, my
>
>wife questioned our principal khitmutgar as to how
>
>many cups and saucers of that particular kind we
>
>possessed. In the progress of years, as the set was
>
>an old set, some had been broken, but the man at once
>
>said that nine teacups were left. When collected and
>
>counted that number was found to be right, without
>
>reckoning the excavated cup. That made ten, and as
>
>regards the pattern, it was one of a somewhat peculiar
>
>kind, bought a good many years previously in London,
>
>and which assuredly could never have been matched
>
>in Simla.
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>
>
>
>Therefore, in light of the testimonial evidence that the "cup and 
>
>saucer both corresponded exactly, as regards their pattern, with 
>
>those that had been brought to the picnic," how likely is it that
>
>your possibility is at all plausible?
>
>
>
>Remember you wrote:
>
>
>
>===================================================================
>
>
>
>...the real cup and saucer could have been lost years before (and the 
>
>tree roots grown over and around it) by the owners who may have 
>
>visited that spot earlier -- since it was near a Temple where many 
>
>picnickers who lived nearby may have gone in the past. HPB, being 
>
>clairvoyant, supposedly, could have then "found" the lost items in 
>
>one of her "brown studies" or trance states.
>
>
>
>==================================================================
>
>
>
>As far as I can tell, this possibility is as "silly" as one dreamed
>
>up by Steve Stubbs a year or so ago and just as "silly" as what Bart 
>
>has suggested.
>
>
>
>Of course, nothing is firm and evidential when one wants to ignore 
>
>the actual facts of the case and talk vaguely about possibly this or 
>
>possibly that.
>
>
>
>Apparently not only extreme skeptics of the paranormal like Randi and 
>
>Kurtz indulge in such speculation but even students of Theosophy and 
>
>Blavatsky. Amazing!!
>
>
>
>Finally let me quote what HPB wrote several years later about the 
>
>occult phenomena of this time period:
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>
>
>
>Never were the phenomena presented in any other character than that
>
>of instances of a power over perfectly natural though unrecognized
>
>forces, and incidentally over matter, possessed by certain
>
>individuals who have attained to a larger and higher knowledge of the
>
>Universe than has been reached by scientists and theologians, or can
>
>ever be reached by them, by the roads they are now respectively
>
>pursuing. Yet this power is latent in all men, and could, in time, be
>
>wielded by anyone who would cultivate the knowledge and conform to
>
>the conditions necessary for its development.
>
>
>
>=================================================================
>
>
>
>Notice her emphasis on "a power over perfectly natural though 
>
>unrecognized forces, and incidentally over matter...."
>
>
>
>This confirms HPB's words quoted earlier which read:
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>
>
>
>... the power of the human will in some of its transcendent 
>
>developments may be enabled to impose on unmanifested matter or 
>
>chaos, the change which brings it within the cognisance of the 
>
>ordinary human senses.
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>
>
>
>...the power of the human will ... may be enabled to impose on 
>
>unmanifested matter....
>
>
>
>This is 180 degrees different from Leon's contention which reads:
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>
>
>
>That is, manipulating the mind of the viewer rather than the actual 
>
>forces that make up the objects themselves.....
>
>
>
>=================================================================
>
>
>
>I advise students to go directly to Blavatsky's and the Masters' 
>
>writings instead of depending on statements by students who claim to 
>
>have read all of their writings.
>
>
>
>Daniel
>
>http://hpb.cc
>
>http://theosophy.info