Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00121)

Since this discussion between a literalist and one who understands the real 
teaching of theosophy and its metaphysics far deeper than the dead letter words 
of the teachers, and has no reason to organize quotations to prove a point or 
back up an understanding or conclusion -- can lead nowhere -- what's the 
purpose of going on with it? All it can do is confuse students into thinking that 
arguing about the particular nature of any psychic phenomena and whether or 
not a different type of phenomena is or isn't produced by the same process, or 
by other means, has anything to do with an understanding of theosophical 
truths, or the actual nature of reality that makes such phenomena possible. 

In any event, I stand by everything I said taken in context with the entire 
body of teachings and qualified statements by HPB and the Masters -- which 
requires study of all their writings pertaining to the science and philosophy of 
theosophy in comparative context -- and not lifting out specific quotes that 
refer to particular aspects of the history of the movement or of the 
performances, experiences, or observations of those connected with the theosophical 
organizations. 

None of that has anything to do with theosophy or an understanding of its 
underlying principles, as well as its occult metaphysics, that will allow one to 
know the basis of psychic phenomena from the inside out rather than from the 
observations and assertions of others (including myself).

So, let's let the matter stand on the entire body of what each of us has 
written -- and not on statements taken out of context, and separated from their 
qualifications, or on quotes from the literature -- that could be misleading 
since they refer to different types of phenomena that require different processes 
for their production... And, let's leave it to the students to determine for 
themselves what is real and what is not -- without reliance on the assertions 
of anyone -- other than their direct teachings of the theosophical synthesis 
of science, religion and philosophy based on fundamental principles... That can 
still be taken with a grain of salt, until proven for oneself. 

In any event, I have no need to prove any of my so called "assertions" (or 
opinions if you will) -- since as I'm sure you'll agree, all this should be 
taken in context and examined by each student for himself. 

As for finding quotes by HPB to "prove" anything I say about her denials that 
certain objects such as organic forms cannot be treated in the same way, from 
a psychic phenomena point of view, as inorganic forms, or that "forms" 
themselves are not the same things as the total inner structure of the objects 
themselves, I'll leave it to others who have studied ALL the writings of HPB (as 
well as those of many other occultists who came before her) on the subject of 
psychic phenomena -- to find out for themselves.

Best wishes,

Leon


In a message dated 07/04/04 12:09:44 PM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:


>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
>
>