Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00130)

In a message dated 07/08/04 11:26:28 AM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>> I hope this lays to rest this constant bombardment of quotes that appears
>> to be, besides a confirmation of the compiler's beliefs or opinions based
>> on a literal acceptance, a more or less futile attempt to denigrate my own
>>> theosophical or occult knowledge and judgment -- which may or may not
>> be correct. But, that's for each of us to find out for ourselves -- 
without 
>> reliance on the statements or opinions of others (no matter who they are 
or 
>>claim to be). 

> The problem is that, if you base your belief in the concepts that have
>been promulgated in Blavatsky's works and the Mahatma letters on the 
>genuity of the phenomena, then any fakery in the latter implies 
>falsehood of the former. Except that gets one into a conundrum, as the
>former emphasize that acceptance of the concepts should NOT be based on
>the authority of the writers, but on their own merits.

It seems to me that the authenticity of the particular phenomena described by 
both HPB or the Masters, has nothing to do with the merits of the metaphysics 
taught by them that supports the different processes by which such 
phenomena can be produced. It is this metaphysics whose belief or understanding 
should NOT be based on the authority of the writers. 

The fact that both HPB and the Masters continually obfuscate (or "blind") the 
actual causes of such phenomena by describing them in vague general terms 
that really does not say anything cogent about their actual methods of 
production, has nothing to do with the fact that the phenomena might have occurred by 
some sort of metaphysical psychic means -- whether hypnotic, manipulation, 
bending of light rays to form illusory images, by actual creation of material forms 
out of fundamental particles or atomic matter, or the disassembly of objects 
into their astral form, transport to another location, and subsequent 
reassembly in physical space. 

Therefore, it is only through a complete knowledge of the metaphysical 
principles behind such causes or methods of producing psychic phenomena that one 
should base ones opinion on whether or not each such particular phenomena 
described by their observers, was possible or impossible by such claimed psychic 
means, or was produced either through other psychic means, or by stage managed or 
diversionary mechanical means (which also would require some knowledge of such 
techniques). In either case, the proof would have to be subjective, unless 
the phenomena could be reproduced experimentally in front of qualified 
witnesses by either means -- with sufficient safeguards to prevent fraud.

LHM

> Bart