Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00065)

Leon,

Thank you for providing clarifications of your views
in your recent postings at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17192

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17193

Let me first requote your original statement which
started this whole series of postings.

You wrote:

=====================================================
As for materialization's... It may be possible to
bend light by the powers of mind and will, and
project a visualized image of an object to appear
as a hologram -- which could be taken for the
real thing. But 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. Such an improbability
could apply to any item that achieved its form
or structure from logical human design
and engineering aided by scientifically
sound chemical and physical manufacturing processes.

If you carefully read "all" the writings of
HPB (as I have) you will find that she has consistently
denied such possibilities and has said that all such
so, called "Magic" or mysterious appearances and
disappearances cannot have supernatural causes, and
are based simply on the proper application of
"glamour"... That is, manipulating the mind of
the viewer rather than the actual forces
that make up the objects themselves.

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... As is all talk
about apparently "miraculous" occurrences based
on blind belief, or on supposition without direct
evidence of the processes involved along with the
knowledge of the logical scientific principles behind them.
============================================================

First, Leon, notice that it was YOU who felt the need to
bring HPB's writings into the equation and into the argument. Your 
words were:

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

If you carefully read "all" the writings of
HPB (as I have) you will find that she has consistently
denied such possibilities.....

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

You emphasized to readers that you had CAREFULLY read ALL of HPB's
writings.

And you said she denied such possibilities.

Therefore since you cited HPB without actually
giving any SPECIFIC references, I felt it would
only be proper to give some ACTUAL citations so
that readers might see for themselves what HPB
was writing as well as what her Masters said
on the subject of "materialization's" and 
"actual teleportation of real objects
and their dematerialization and materialization."

But when I give the actual detailed references from HPB's
writings and from the statements by her Teachers, you 
follow up with such statements as the following:

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

With respect to all the below citations -- you 
may have "set the record straight" as far as the 
assertions of the Masters and HPB, as well as their
sycophants go. But, nothing said, either by you 
or they, proves that any particular phenomena reported 
is or is not some sort of magical trick -- in contrast 
to a legitimate process of occult psychic phenomena....

If anyone is "wiggling" out of logical reasoning about 
these phenomena, it's yourself -- based on the quotations 
of your presumed "experts" or authorities about subjects 
you seem to have no logical or metaphysical arguments to 
prove or disprove what they say, one way or another....

Therefore, further reasonable discussion with respect 
to this subject, is futile, since the only way you can 
make your point, apparently based on belief or
"faith" without question in assertions by the Teachers...

Your record perhaps. But it still it does not pertain to the 
statements I or Bart made, nor does it prove anything except that 
HPB, KH, Olcott or Sinnet, et al., said it.

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

Quite an interesting rejoinder!!!

Furthermore, although you yourself bring HPB into the debate
and declare that "she has consistently denied such possibilities"
you fail to cite as far as I can see even one extract from
her pen to support YOUR assertion that she denied such
and such.

And in one of your latest postings, you even write:

"I wonder what quotes of HPB (some in her numerous articles) 
you are skipping over, to make your case?"

Well, why do YOU WONDER since you previously claimed that
you had CAREFULLY read ALL of her writings?

You even said she CONSISTENTLY DENIED.... therefore you
should know what quotes I'm skipping over.

Therefore please cite those quotes of HPB that I might
be skipping over.

But.....I forgot, you really care nothing for "the quotations 
of your presumed 'experts' [i.e., HPB and the Masters]" although
when convenient you can write:

======================================================
If you carefully read "all" the writings of
HPB (as I have) you will find that she has consistently
denied such possibilities.....
=====================================================

In summary on this point, readers can now contrast and
compare what you have written with what HPB, her
Teachers and THEIR "sycophants" have said. And that
was the MAIN purpose of my postings.

Moving on...

Writing about materializations, you tell us in your
original posting (quoted above) on this subject:

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

Such an improbability
could apply to ANY ITEM that achieved its form
or structure from logical human design
and engineering aided by scientifically
sound chemical and physical manufacturing processes.

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

Caps added to ANY ITEM.

So this statement of yours applies to the cup and saucer, right? 

But what about paper, plaster, rings, brooches, spoons
and turbans that are materialized or teleported???? See my previous
posts for detailed examples.

Why do THESE ITEMS not ALSO fall into the category of "logical
human design and engineering .... chemical and physical
manufacturing processes"?

Why is a cup in a totally different category then these
other items?

As far as I can tell, you fail to explain this other than
to merely assert it.

And you write that my arguments are "non philosophical and
unscientific" and you assert that:

"you seem to have no logical or metaphysical arguments to prove
or disprove what they say, one way or another."

But where are your philosophical and scientific arguments?
Your logical and metaphysical arguments?

I see mere assertion. 

I'm sure interested readers will find much more to ponder on
in your latest two postings. For example, the following
two statements of yours are priceless gems which readers will
no doubt want to preserve for future discussion:

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

...there is no way for you to prove that these "extant" [Mahatma] 
letters are not ex post facto forgeries... Or, if original, not 
conjured up by the one producing them by means other than legitimate 
psychic phenomena....

....As for myself, I'm still not absolutely certain that the Mahatma 
himself isn't a figment of HPB's imagination :-)... And, even if he 
was, I couldn't care less....

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

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