Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00120)

In a message dated 07/03/04 1:28:28 PM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>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"?

[LM] All the "ifs' above are just hypothetical questions that deserves a 
hypothetical answer -- such as; What if all that you say they could do werebased 
on psychism, hypnotic illusions, or simple precipitation's of existing 
particles, that had nothing to do with actual materialization's of physicalobjects 
out of the Astral by occult means? Besides, why should we consider "faith" 
when such phenomena, to be considered as real, must be proven to be possible by 
the actual scientific nature of the metaphysical reality that can be proven 
only subjectively by one who can understand the nature of and can manipulate that 
reality by scientific/metaphysical means. Also, the "larger objects" could 
still have simple singular atomic structures such as precious or base metals, 
as well as simple precious stones composed of similar single atomic structures. 
>From a psychic phenomena point of view this has nothing to do with more 
complex items such as multiple part machinery or other manufactured items of 
multiple molecular structures, along with living organic matter. Also, what has 
teleportation to do with either precipitation, or accumulations or fusing of 
ordinary atomic matter out of the atmosphere, or directly transmuted from the 
Akasha or Astral fields? 

>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?

[LM] I didn't say they couldn't, but only implied that the methods of such 
phenomena would be different, since they are of more complex structure as well 
as possibly organic in nature -- which HPB said could not be treated the same 
way as inorganic matter.  

>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.

Neither of these phenomena have been proven to be an actual manipulation of 
matter -- but only assumed as such, if not simply implied in the cleverly 
constructed, superficially descriptive or qualified writing of both HPB andthe 
Masters.  

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

They cannot prove that, any more than we can prove that the human mind can 
manipulate matter. So, they have as much right to their opinion as you have to 
yours (or anyone else who has blind "faith" in the teachings of HPB and the 
Masters). :-)  

>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.

But, then, there is no case made that all the phenomena was produced by the 
same process. I never said any of them "cannot be done" by some occult psychic 
process or another. I just said that those processes could be quite 
different in nature -- from psychologizing or glamorizing, to hypnotic suggestion, to 
actual manipulation of matter (that is highly qualified as to exactly what 
forms, qualities and quantities of matter we are talking about). There is great 
difference between precipitation of writing out of carbon particles that are 
in the atmosphere (or the smoke of HPB's cigarette ;-) onto an already 
manufactured piece of paper -- or producing a carbon molecule composed of electrons, 
protons and neutrons, or even the calcium carbonates, metallic salts, and 
silicon dioxides of a porcelain cup, out of nihil. And, disassembly of forms, 
remote transport, and reassembly is an entirely different matter altogether.  

>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."  

[LM] Where and how 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 ofmany
>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:

[LM] In spite of all that written documentation pertaining to individual 
observations of psychic appearances, or statements that those methods were 
adequately explained, none of it constitutes a proof that the actual phenomena was 
produced by manipulation and transmutation of primal substance or explains 
anything about how it could actually be done.  

My comments that you are confusing apples with oranges -- when you imply that 
ALL such phenomena (that can only be described by questionable witnesses to 
the illusion or phenomena) can be produced by the same techniques -- still 
stands. I also can say that all your quotes along with your implicative and 
leading questions are just barking up trees -- when it comes to proving anything 
one way or the other. Therefore, I stand on my own knowledge and experience 
with the subject -- that goes far deeper than HPB or any Master has gone into in 
any of their writings. Although, I can offer no proof that what I say is true 
-- since I'm not about to reveal the actual methods of controlling the will 
to correlate the forces on the various planes of consciousness -- which the 
Masters and HPB have also refused to reveal, and have constantly covered upby 
their superficially misleading commentaries that, while truthful, still imply a 
lie to the casual or literal reader.  

Incidentally, one of the apparent precipitation experiences that I 
encountered and described in a previous post, was actually done (as later explained to 
me) using a blank piece of paper that was already in the location I found it.  
Since the initiated Lama who sent me the message could have put that paper 
there with the writing on it (six month earlier when he visited my studio) -- the 
only way he could prove it was an immediate and unpremeditated psychic 
phenomena was to have the writing disappear soon after I read it. So, it was not 
the paper that disappeared but the writing on it -- as the blank paper was 
similar to all the other note papers on my cluttered desk, and that's why I 
couldn't find the note when I left my desk and later returned. When the actual 
process was later explained to me in detail, it was not the same as the supposed 
"precipitation" of carbon particles such as presumedly produced the Mahatma 
letters, but more like a telepathic projection that caused me to believe the 
writing I saw in my mind was actually on the paper. (That process works best with 
a subject who already is artistically talented or trained to be able to 
visualize forms and shapes and project them out onto a canvas or drawing pad.) My 
correspondent knew that about me, and also the layout of my Studio as well as 
the wiring of my mind -- since he had already taught me the trick of how to 
find that out by looking into another's eyes in a certain special manner. It's 
quite possible that HPB could have used this method in producing some of her 
phenomena among her close friends and associates -- since it is of minimal drain 
on ones psychic energy.  

While I know exactly how this particular psychic phenomena works, I have 
never actually practiced it, since, not only would it take much practice tohold 
the concentration of will on the unwavering image, but, I have taken both HPB's 
and Patanjali's advice to ignore all those Siddhis when the knowledge of them 
has been obtained -- since they do cost dearly (to one's health) to use them 
unnecessarily -- as some of my adept friends who have practiced them (a few 
dead or made very ill by them at an early age) well know.  

But, this phenomena, which is similar to the letters produced by HPB, still 
has no relationship with the production of psychically materialized artifacts 
(if such is possible) such as brooches, illusory "rose petals" (since HPB 
denied such "organic matter" could be created from scratch) gold rings, cups and 
saucers, radios, computers, etc.  

>========================================================

>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?

Since it probably was made of solid silver or gold, it was of a simple single 
atomic nature. But, that doesn't prove the particular incident was an actual 
passing of matter through matter, as assumed by WQJ. Besides, this describes 
a supposed poltergeist that could very well have been a sleight of hand trick 
that completely fooled WQJ -- who was nowhere near as adept as HPB in pulling 
off such stunts, or recognizing such instantaneous occurrences as an actual 
psychic phenomena, or simply a misinterpretation -- similar to the phony knife 
throwing tricks of stage magicians.

>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.

[LM] By what "accounts" can we "prove" that Morya was not in New York, or 
that the man who appeared was Morya, or that the turban wasn't slipped to Olcott 
physically, or that ... etc., etc.? But, let's assume it all happened as 
reported. Then the only question remains, what was the actual process usedto 
perform these phenomena, and how do they relate to the simple precipitationof 
letters, or the passing of matter through matter. I've been simply questioning 
the difference in means, not the actual possibility of the phenomena itself.  
So, why harangue me all these irrelevant, and repetitive implicative 
questions?  

>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???

I'm still not so sure that this Turban was actually delivered by occult 
psychic means. The whole thing smacks of a pipe dream to me.  

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

Maybe. But, the important questions they should ask should be; What is the 
different nature of different forms of matter, that leads me to assume thatthe 
different phenomena described, if not some sort of stage managed magic or 
sleight of hand trick, e.g. the spoon suddenly appearing HPB's hand (ha, ha),  
could have different means of occult psychic production -- such as 
precipitation, clairvoyant finding of lost objects, manipulation of superficial light 
reflection from the surface of empty holographically produced objects, 
Mesmerization, hypnotic suggestion, transport from one location to another by 
rearrangement of atomic structure, etc.?  

What is the difference between living organic forms, and inert inorganic 
matter that makes certain forms of manifestation or teleportation by occultmeans 
possible or impossible? The questions relating to the truth or not of the 
reports about psychic phenomena being the last thing that should occupy theminds 
of any serious student of theosophy. Theosophical knowledge does not depend 
on either the authority of the teachers, or the belief in their ability to 
produce psychic phenomena.  

Incidentally, I started out assuming that the whole system was a fantasy -- 
including the occult knowledge imparted to me at a young age by my alchemist 
father, a 33rd degree freemason... And then, set out to prove to myself it 
wasn't a fantasy by many years of study of the textbooks given to us by HPBand 
others, and practice of the meditation techniques suggested. That's the only way 
to know for oneself how psychic phenomena of any type can be produced using 
lawful metaphysical processes, and what types of supposed phenomena (as 
reported by witnesses) cannot be so produced.

Leon


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