Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00069)

In a message dated 03/02/02 11:46:19 AM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>I didn't "expose" Don Jose, for you to claim that unfortunatly shows
>you do not understand much about this and related matters. And 
>instead write rather negative and cynical about this and related
>subjects including religious invented pseudo-science. What about 
>practicing some genuine, "hearth doctrine" and realising the fallacies
>of your own mind. 

Where did I claim you "exposed" Don Jose? Why don't you explain what these 
"fallacies in (my) own mind" are? If you know them, I would appreciate your 
counter arguments or factual details that might change my mind. 

Sorry you didn't appreciate the little joke I started with, and took it as 
"negative and cynical." If so, I apologize. It wasn't intended that way. 
(Unfortunately, your snide remarks and comments about people you write about 
sometimes provoke such facetious responses, however.:-)

I'm also sorry you didn't appreciate my comments about "this and related 
matters" -- some of which you seem to have a built in negative attitude 
about... Especially when the so called "religious invented pseudo science" 
you speak about -- of which you apparently know so little about, and which, 
in fact is consistent with the most modern scientific theories of zero-point 
multidimensional (3+7+1) energy fields, along with relativity and quantum 
theories -- claims to also be consistent with the cosmogenetic metaphysical 
processes explained by Blavatsky in the SD (which you, apparently, also 
wrongly classify as "religious pseudo science"). 

As I said before, why don't you open-mindedly study these modern scientific 
theories as well as the metaphysical teachings in the SD, and compare them, 
along with my ABC theory, before you make such unfounded and opinionated 
remarks about these parallel "scientific" (albeit theoretical) approaches 
toward explaining and synthesizing physical and metaphysical realities. 
Then, maybe, we might be able to discuss them intelligently -- without ad 
homonym arguments.

>You are right however about shamanic healing as a placibo and that 
>placibo's do work for those who believe in them.

Thanks for the confirmation. I take it, then, that you agree that such 
tricks are a good thing, especially if they can cause people to use their 
mind (even unknowingly) to heal themselves. So, it isn't the belief in the 
placebo that causes the healing, but a belief that it is a real curative 
medicine that does the healing -- wouldn't you agree?

But, wouldn't it be better if we understood the metaphysics of that healing 
process, along with the appropriate meditative visualization techniques -- to 
learn how to think-talk directly to our inner healing mechanisms (like 
antibodies and such), and heal ourselves -- without such Shamanic tricks -- 
which are only necessary for those ignorant of metaphysical realities?

>And with that you and some others on the list at one point (but
>probably not Daniel Caldwell who lives in his Blavatsky as the teacher
>of "Morya and K.H." delusion) might also understand the secret of 
>Blavatsky's purported "materialisations" and as you state she is indeed
>the one that it was all "glamour." 

All I can say to that is... So what? What has Blavatsky's early 
"Shamanistic" trickery practices to recruit members of her society (which she 
later, admittedly regretted) have to do with the validity of the teachings 
she gave out in Isis, the Secret Doctrine, and in all her other metaphysical 
and practical theosophical writings -- (that I assume most of the subscribers 
to this forum are more interested in hearing about and discussing with 
relation to modern science and current world affairs, rather than non 
sequitur personality bashing, and useless history of where those teachings 
came from)?
>
>Yes you are right that some of the 19th century spiritualsitic 
>beliefs the like Blavatsky's staged materializations indeed are old
>hat by now as you state. 

I didn't mean that the materialization's are old hat, but that your bringing 
them up as negative gossip questioning the validity of HPB's metaphysical 
teachings -- is "old hat."

>So lets talk about more interesting subjects that have not been
>covered so much on theos-talk yet. (If we don't right away get another
>29 postings on it from from Daniel now) 

What's interesting to you, is not necessarily what most theosophists might 
find useful. I always thought they were really interested in knowing more 
about and discussing theosophy, its principles, its metaphysics and its 
practical applications, rather than old regurgitated personalized history 
about long dead teachers and TS politicians, or about ancient teachings and 
teachers that they can read about in your and other writers' books on those 
subjects. Since this is the "Theosophical World" e-mail forum, I would think 
that the topics of discussion would be close to what is usually published in 
that magazine. 

As for Daniel, until you came along with your material with its questionable 
inferences, innuendoes, opinions and conclusions, he was content, like the Com
piler, to leave his commentaries on theosophy and its history to his web site 
-- with only a simple notice here for those interested in the topics, 
articles, and reprints he posts there. I wonder why you don't do the same, 
and leave your arguments with each other to your personal correspondence -- 
rather than continually insist on gratuitously flooding our mailboxes with 
your lengthy arguments about theosophical history -- that most of us are not 
much interested in, other than superficially, or academically (for a very few 
of us).

I also wonder what makes you so eager to always prove to us that you are the 
last word on anything you write about? And please don't take that as a 
personal put down, since I have great respect for honest historical research 
-- in the right place, and for the right readers who are searching for such 
information. 

LHM