Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00116)

In a message dated 07/01/04 4:47:13 AM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>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. 
>
>
>
>===================================================
>
>
>
>But Leon, my question to you and other interested readers is:
>
>
>
>are we really mixing apples with oranges??
>
>
>
>As far as I can tell, you have not made a case for that
>
>other than to assert it.

[LM] HPB said that certain forms of matter such as living organic forms 
cannot be so manipulated. These are the apples you are confusing with oranges. 
That's also enough of an exception to make my case in this endless, he said, she 
said, he said form of inconclusive argument that gets us nowhere and proves 
nothing.

>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 that they could do the same with 
>
>a cup or a brooch or the dozens of other
>
>larger objects that apparently HPB "created" or 
>
>"manipulated"?

[LM] I'm glad you used the word "apparently"... Since, for none of that can 
we say "positively," and by such and such means. For, neither of us can know a 
hill of beans about what other people say they saw or what HPB actually did.

>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."

[LM] Because it is to me "a matter of fact" that such is the case -- based on 
my own study, direct teachings, and personal experience. 

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

[LM] Because here are certain (different) laws that apply to each method as 
well as to elemental substances, organic or living organisms, surfaces and 
interiors of 3-dimensional forms, and to complex multi part objects, molecular 
forms composed of differing compound materials, as well as functional mechanical 
objects or machine structures. It's also a fact that most theosophical 
writing about such phenomena is highly simplistic and generalized -- since occult 
metaphysics and its laws are, as is physics and its laws, almost completely 
incomprehensible to anyone except the most advanced students of either discipline. 
(Not to mention that most exoteric writings on such subjects are 
intentionally misleading to prevent the revealing to the profane of occult secrets.) 

My conviction comes about since, not only have I studied occult metaphysics 
under competent (Adept) teachers, but also physics (through some of the same 
teachers as well as in University courses) and have synthesized them in such a 
manner that my theory of ABC, is not only consistent with theosophical 
metaphysics, as "outlined" in the SD, but also with Superstring/M-brane theory and 
other advanced physics that synthesizes relativity and quantum theories into a 
simple and direct unified field theory of everything -- including (in the case 
of ABC as well as theosophical metaphysics) consciousness (which, incidentally, 
contemporary science is still baffled by). 

>You say 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.

[LM] You still haven't proven to me (nor has the quotes you presented) that 
the Adept has "manipulated" the atoms of anything. Or, if he did, how it was 
done. It's also obvious, that if I did know the actual process in each such 
case, there is no way that it could be proven, nor would I be able to (or wish 
to) explain it to you (as a literalist) in written terms that you might 
understand. 

>The Randis of the world would no doubt say we are simply
>
>talking about apples. There are NO oranges. The human "mind" 
>
>or "will" cannot directly manipulate matter either thru levitation or 
>
>materialization.

[LM] I hope you're not implying that I ever said anything like that. 
Sticking Randi into this conversation is a perfect example of confusing apples with 
oranges. I am not a dyed in the wool skeptic in the same sense he is... But I 
am a doubter of what anyone (including HPB and the Masters) says about a 
metaphysical or scientific process (whether as a witness or a producer) until it is 
proven to me through careful study and intuition tempered by reason, or 
demonstrated in repeatable, controlled experiments -- with sufficient safeguards to 
prevent fraud -- which can easily sneak (intentionally or otherwise) in at 
any phase in such complex processes. 

>And that all such claimed occurrences concerning paranormal
>
>manipulation of paper or cups involve some ERROR of observation or 
>
>FRAUD, conjuring tricks, etc. etc.

[LM] Are you then saying that such things are not possible? In any event, I 
never said any such thing about any or "ALL such claimed occurrences." 

>I may be missing your point but as far as I can see it, you
>
>have only made an assertion.

[LM] ...Which should, in my view, have, for purposes of argument or in search 
of truth, the same credibility as the assertions made by all the people you 
have quoted. :-) 

Unfortunately, so far in all this continuing and repetitive he said, she 
said, he said, form of argument -- no one (except myself, and maybe some 
perceptive readers) has considered the implied qualifications in those statements or 
the hidden meanings underlying their literal and generalized interpretations. 
Thus, I think it foolish to take HPB's or KH's or any witnesses statements or 
comments about the methods or processes of psychic phenomena (which the Masters 
are careful to say should not be revealed to or practiced by their students) 
at face value. Therefore, as a long time serious student of occult 
metaphysics and its synthesis with physics, I am inclined to believe that almost 
everything the theosophical teachers publicly say about them, that might lead to an 
understanding of the true methods or processes, is in the nature of a "blind." 

As a speculative aside, I would think that if theosophy teaches that the 
ultimately real Master is within each of us, and is our highest nature -- that 
even if HPB wrote the Mahatma Letters herself, brought them out through psychic 
illusions to make them appear as if produced by other occult means, and 
attributed them (out of respect and loyalty) to the Masters who taught her the 
mysteries in Tibet and set her on the compassionate and altruistic theosophical path 
-- no fraud would have been committed by her. 

Remember, HPB needed no deep training as a manipulator of occult forces of 
nature -- since she was a natural born psychic (had performed such "miracles" or 
poltergeists as a young girl) as well as a highly skilled and talented artist 
and musician -- which, IMO, are almost essential backgrounds for prospective 
occultists... Who must be able to visualize and hear with the inner eye and 
ear, the most subtle details of form, structure, and vibrational patterns of 
informative sound and light images at vibrational frequencies from near zero to 
near infinite -- so as to encompass all seven fold (eight) fields of 
consciousness (which I, in merging theosophical metaphysics with post modern science, 
call "hyperspace fields") from the Akasha to the primal (triple) Monad, to the 
(four field) physical body of Brahma, reflected (as above, so below) in every 
human being. Thus, HPB, as an accomplished psychologist, knowing intuitively 
exactly what easy (for her) phenomenon to use to impress each of her disciples 
in accordance with their level of understanding -- was, thereby, the perfect 
tool (and "medium") of the Masters -- while still maintaining her individual 
independence and free will.

Leon 

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