Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00860)

There is only one "polemicist" in this forum. And, it certainly isn't myself 
or any of the others you are constantly argufying with.

This is probably my last response to your long winded second hand arguments 
against the validity of theosophy and the credibility of its teachers based 
on quoting so called "experts" and "authorities" who use their revelations or 
opinions about the nature of reality to argue against other peoples 
revelations or opinions. So, let's get it straight for a change... You're 
barking up a tree.

For one thing, I do not profess to be a historical "scholar." Secondly, I 
cannot speak as a member of any theosophical organization, society, group or 
religion connected or disconnected with theosophy. Thirdly, I couldn't care 
less whether or not the Mahatma letters were "authentic," or about the 
opinions, ideas, concepts, or religious beliefs of whoever wrote them. And 
lastly, I am not interested in arguing about anyone's religious beliefs or 
whether the "God" or "Gods" of any religion's exist or not. (Although, I 
have no problem studying ALL their ancient and modern scriptures for the 
wisdom and philosophical or scientific truths they may contain.) 

My sole interest is in finding a logically and scientifically valid 
understanding of the teachings of metaphysics put forth in the Secret 
Doctrine as a "synthesis of science religion and philosophy" -- which, in my 
view is entirely consistent with the fundamental teachings of all the ancient 
and modern philosopher-scientists and occultists (that I have been studying 
and correlating all my life). I do not believe in any of it, blindly, nor do 
I deny it, blindly. My mind has always been open to logical and consistent 
proof based on science, mathematics, and direct observation -- both 
subjectively and objectively. Therefore my interest lies in studying such a 
"theory" and, if correct, trying to prove it, and if incorrect, falsify it -- 
on strictly logical and scientific grounds... 

Other than that, I have no interest in arguing about the opinions and 
conclusions of others, or proving anything pro or con about the religious 
ideals, or Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis teachings of theosophy -- other 
than from a scientifically valid ontological and epistemological standpoint 
-- based on fundamental principles. 

However, the religious aspects pertaining to true or false Gods, or racist 
interpretations are "side issues" that are not my current concern -- except 
to point out the foolishness of those who argue about them. 

Accordingly, I stand on my theory of ABC (that, coincidentally, does not 
contradict, and in fact confirms theosophical metaphysics) -- which can 
logically, scientifically and philosophically be argued as being a consistent 
means of explaining the involution and evolution of the UNIVERSE (and all the 
beings, things and their properties within it). This parsimonious 
explanation answers all the unanswered questions of cosmic origin, genesis, 
ontology and epistemology now baffling all disciplines of modern science -- 
particularly, with respect to their studies of the connections and 
interrelationships between consciousness and matter, mind and brain, as well 
as explaining the "experience" of consciousness. 

If you or any of your "credentialed" experts wish to present arguments 
against this theory, or can offer up a better model that invalidates its 
and/or the theosophical metaphysics, that is consistent with the theories of 
relativity, quantum and Superstring/M-brane physics, as well as with 
fundamental principles (as a priori) -- I would be happy to review your 
dissertations on the subject, and present my counter arguments, if necessary. 


Beyond that, I have no further interest in hearing from you. 

LHM
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ABC_bw.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/yinyang.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html

In a message dated 11/22/02 4:19:36 AM, brianmuehlbach@yahoo.com writes:

>"OPINIONS about theosophy and 
>its teachings -- of which you, apparently, know little (even superficially)=
>or nothing at all"
>
>Brian: If you know anything at all yourself then start by showing us one
>by one a scolarly refutation of the few dozen "philosophical" points 
>refuting the contents of for example the "Mahatma Letters" below, but 
>do work trough it all the way to the end if you want to be worth your 
>salt, and not just be looked upon by some as a crackpot polemicist:

(Snip repeats of previous mailings from BAG, B/BM, etc.)