Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00049)

Leon's Contentions concerning "simple substances" 
VERSUS "more complex structures"

Leon, you wrote:

=====================================================

I think we are mixing apples and oranges when
we compare the manifestation of simple substances
like base metals, non living carbonaceous substances
like paper along with the writing on it, or simple
plaster -- with more complex structures like glazed
and painted porcelain of particular design, or manufactured
items like computers (that began this commentary in
the first place).

The concept of a light manipulated hologram was just
proposed as one possibility of a manifestation of a
physical form, and did not preclude other methods
of so called "materialization's" -- such as actual
disassembly and reassembly of material particles
that make up a simple form, precipitation of writing
on existing or manifested paper of temporary or
permanent form -- depending on the method of precipitation
or assembly, etc. Such phenomena can be done by
many different methods of correlation and manipulation
of coenergetic forces on or through multiple levels
of hyperspace.

===================================================

Leon, if an adept can manipulate the "atoms" in a letter or
in a piece of plaster; if an occultist such as HPB or
KH could materialize a letter from the Akasa or teleport
one from one location to another; if HPB
or M could precipitate ink on a sheet of paper, then
is it such a LEAP of faith to believe they could do 
the same with a cup or a brooch or the dozens of other
larger objects that apparently HPB & the Masters "created" or
"manipulated"?

You write as though it is a matter of fact that:

"Such phenomena [that you accept ]CAN BE DONE by many different
methods of correlation and manipulation of coenergetic forces
on or through multiple levels of hyperspace." Bold added.

If that is true, then why not that of a cup or brooch
or turban?

You contend that the cup would be a "more complex structure"
than paper or plaster, but you have not shown why
an adept who can manipulate the "atoms" of paper or
plaster cannot also manipulate the "atoms" of a cup or a brooch.

The Randis of the world claim that the human "mind"
or "will" CANNOT directly manipulate matter either thru levitation or
materialization.

But if we open the door to the "phenomena" which you say CAN BE
DONE, then why not the "larger" or "more complex" phenomena??

Leon, as far as I can tell, you have not made a case for
the DIFFERENCE other than to assert that one can be done
but the other CANNOT.

Notice what Blavatsky writes in introducing an article by
a chela:

"If we mistake not, this is the first time that the rationale of the 
control exercised by an Adept Occultist over the relations of atoms, 
and of the phenomena of the 'passage of matter through matter,' has 
been so succinctly and yet clearly explained."

And that chela writes:

"It is one of those complete proofs of the superior familiarity with
and control over atomic relations among our Eastern Adepts as
compared with modern Western men of science, to which custom has made
me familiar. It was the same power as that employed in the formation
of the letter in the air of your room at——; in the case of many
other air-born letters; of showers of roses; of the gold ring which 
leaped from the heart of a moss-rose while held in _____________'s 
hand; of a sapphire ring doubled for a lady of high position here, a 
short time ago, and of other examples."

Notice the items: a "shower of roses", a gold ring, a sapphire ring.

So here we find items other than simple plaster or paper.

And least we forget what William Judge wrote, I quote his words again:

========================================================

One evening I was in a hurry to copy a drawing I had made, and looked 
about on the table for a paper cutter with which to rub the back of 
the drawing so as to transfer the surplus carbon to a clean sheet.

As I searched, it was suggested by someone that the round smooth back 
of a spoon bowl would be the best means, and I arose to go to the 
kitchen at the end of the hall for a spoon. But Mme. Blavatsky 
said, "Stop, you need not go there; wait a moment." I stopped at the 
door, and she, sitting in her chair, held up her left hand. At that 
instant a large tablespoon flew through the air across the room from 
out of the opposite wall and into her hand. No one was there to throw 
it to her, and the dining room from which it had been transported was 
about thirty feet distant, two brick walls separating it from the 
front room.

========================================================

A large tablespoon.......

Is this large tablespoon a "complex" substance like a cup or 
a "simple" substance like paper or plaster?

Or what about the turban mentioned by Koot Hoomi:

"At New York you demanded of M. [Master Morya] an objective proof 
that his visit to you was not a maya - & he gave it [the turban] ; 
unasked, I give you the present one: tho' I pass out of your sight 
this note will be to you the reminder of our conferences....."

By all accounts Morya was not physically in New York at that time yet 
according to Koot Hoomi and Olcott, M. left a turban for Olcott.

Olcott wrote:

"When I asked him to leave me some tangible evidence that I had not 
been the dupe of a vision, but that he had indeed been there, he 
removed from his head the puggri [turban] he wore, and giving it to 
me, vanished from my sight." H. S. Olcott, Theosophy, Religion and 
Occult Science (London, 1885), p. 123 

See a photo of the turban at:

http://theosophy.info/moryaturban.htm

Is this turban a simple substance or is this turban just as complex 
in substance as the cup???

Leon, these are just some of the points and questions that students 
of Theosophy should grapple with in trying to evaluate your 
contentions.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc
http://theosophy.info