Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00060)

Daniel, 

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. In addition it's obvious 
that whatever has been said about such processes is highly qualified and only 
concerns certain possibilities that are of the simplest nature -- such as 
precipitated letters or the projections of outer forms only of simple objects -- for 
which I don't think I have any question about their possibility of occurrence. 
In any event, until one has experienced such phenomena for themselves, all 
the talk about them is nothing more than hearsay, and can still be taken with a 
grain of salt -- without reasonable explanation of the methodologies used 
that is consistent with fundamental principles, along with direct personal experie
nce.

Your uses of such anecdotal evidence to counter some of my assumptions of 
other possible means to achieve the same apparent effects in the case of reported 
observations of particular phenomena, is both non philosophical and 
unscientific, and therefore, carries no weight as valid argument that mightprove my or 
Bart's considerations of such alternative possibilities may be wrong. 
Witnessed reports of observed phenomena by laymen, as well as assertions about the 
nature of the methodology behind their appearance, cannot be taken as proofof 
the actual mechanisms used. 

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. Evidence based on the 
observation of others or assertions by self professed teachers of theosophy, has no 
weight whatsoever with respect to the truth of the methods by which such 
phenomena is produced. In fact theosophy itself is presented as nothing more than an 
unproved "theory" that has to be questioned and proven subjectively by each 
individual student for themselves.  

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, or reports of lay 
witnesses -- is by repetitive bombardment of us with those assertions by those 
whose teachings must remain subject to continued individual study and 
questioning -- until proved for oneself by a combination of intuition tempered by 
reason, without presumption of authority of any sort. 


LHM

P.S. See further comments below.


In a message dated 06/29/04 4:42:20 PM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>I quote Leon's original contention again to refresh
>
>our memory and then follow it with a number of
>
>citations from HPB's and KH's writings. Interested
>
>readers can compare and contrast the views given.
>
>
>
>First Leon's original remarks are as follows:
>
>
>
>==================================================
>
>
>
>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. 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....
>
>
>
>If you carefully read "all" the writings of
>
>HPB (as I have) you will find that she has consistently
>
>denied such possibilities....

[LM] I think my comments in a previous post plus the above emphasis on the 
word "all," satisfactorily explains this statement. I wonder what quotes of HPB 
(some in her numerous articles) you are skipping over, to make your case? 

>===================================================
>
>
>
>And even when I quoted additional remarks from
>
>HPB given in her COLLECTED WRITINGS, Vol. IX, p. 239,
>
>Leon tried to "wiggle out" with the following explanation:
>
>
>
>=================================================
>
>
>
>But, even here, the only thing that is "made visible" 
>
>by reflection of light is the outer surface or "form" 
>
>of the object being manifest. Therefore, this is still 
>
>an illusion of solidity -- since there is no need to 
>
>recreate the inner structures of the object itself. 
>
>It's quite obvious that the outer "form"of any material
>
>object is not equivalent to the entire solid inner 
>
>"body" of the object itself -- which may be composed 
>
>of entirely different substances than the single side
>
>by side atoms that compose its outer surface and 
>
>which governs its reflectivity only.

[LM] Maybe you should carefully read these quotes and note the qualifications 
that HPB makes that limit her discussion to particular cases of phenomenal 
manifestations.

>=====================================================
>
>
>
>Notice Leon is saying that the materialization would only
>
>give "an illusion of solidity"; In other words, all we are dealing
>
>with IS a mind-created TEMPORARY "hologram".

[LM] That referred to a hypothetical possibility in a particular case. And, 
doesn't mean that such speculation denies other occult, or stage magic 
possibilities that are just as likely or unlikely -- as the case may be.

>Now let us give the following statements by HPB
>
>and KH. Keep in mind as you read them
>
>
>
>(1) that Leon is contending that "If you carefully read 
>
>'all' the writings of HPB (as I have) you will find that 
>
>she has consistently denied such possibilities...."
>
>
>
>I would assume that Leon also is saying that KH would
>
>also deny such possibilities.

[LM] Now, why would I say that? I was referring to the transfer of "all" 
matter through matter. HPB denied that some matter such as living organic matter 
could be so transported, or disassembled and reassembled.  

>(2) that these precipitated letters mentioned in the
>
>following extracts are physical. In other words, they
>
>are still extant and quite physical. Therefore how
>
>are they still maintaining their "illusion of solidity"
>
>as Leon calls it?

[LM] Besides, my not referring to such physical objects that are produced by 
different occult processes than those used to transport solid matter through 
walls, etc. -- there is no way for you to prove that these "extant" lettersare 
not ex post facto forgeries... Or, if original, not conjured up by the one 
producing them by means other than legitimate psychic phenomena.  

>Now the quotes:
>
>
>
>===========================================================
>
>
>
>...the vril or Akas -- as we call it -- is looked upon as an 
>
>impossibility, a myth. And, without a thorough knowledge of 
>
>Akas, its combinations and properties, how can Science hope to 
>
>account for such [occult phenomena] phenomena [as the cup
>
>and saucer or the precipitationof letters]? KH in THE MAHATMA
>
>LETTERS
>
>
>
>============================================================
>
>
>
>Does Bart and or Leon also view the Akas as "an impossibility,
>
>a myth"?

[LM] Would it make any difference if we said yes or no? 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 -- since I am a 
student of what has been written down (as well as taught to me directly, mouth 
to ear) about theosophy and its occult metaphysics, and have no concern about 
the personality of those who compiled it, or the means by which such knowledge 
came to them -- since it stands on its own reasonableness, and confirms what 
I have intuited and reasoned about it for myself. 

>================================================================
>
>
>
>It is through the power to see and use these "abstract" forms
>
>that the Adept is able to evolve before our eyes any object
>
>desired — a miracle to the Christian, a fraud for the
>
>materialist. Countless myriads of forms are in that ideal sphere, and
>
>matter exists in the astral light, or even in the atmosphere, that
>
>has passed through all forms possible for us to conceive of. All that
>
>the Adept has to do is to select the "abstract form" desired, then to
>
>hold it before him with a force and intensity unknown to the men of
>
>this hurried age, while he draws into its boundaries the matter
>
>required to make it visible. How easy this to state, how difficult to
>
>believe; yet quite true, as many a theosophist very well knows. . . .
>
>H. P. Blavatsky in COLLECTED WRITINGS, IX, p. 239

[LM] This qualified statement doesn't necessarily apply to the particular 
phenomena being discussed by Bart or myself. Making things visible superficially 
"right before our eyes" is not the same as making them substantial and 
functional, especially in the case of objects composed of many parts, or 
interrelated sub structures. I therefore, have reason to doubt if an Adept can reproduce 
from scratch a fully functional radio, cel phone, or computer.  

Maybe you should note the above qualifying phrase. "the Adept is able to 
evolve before our eyes any object desired." The particular "evolve before our 
eyes" refers solely to its outer form, not it inner structure or functionaluse. 
This is a typical application of Hermes instruction to disciples, "Tell the 
truth to imply the lie" -- which is always in such cases, strictly in the mind 
of the gullible reader, who assumes too much. It is also one of the methods of 
inserting "blinds" in so called esoteric writings to prevent the revealing of 
occult processes to uninitiated lay readers.

>============================================================
>
>
>
>The above quote is the extract to which Leon gave his "illusion
>
>of solidity" explanation quoted earlier in this posting.

[LM] That's stretching it a bit -- since I never referred to this quote, nor 
does its "make visible to the eyes" have anything to do with the construction 
of a functional object.

>===============================================================
>
>
>
>I have to think it over, to photograph every word and 
>
>sentence carefully in my brain before it can be repeated 
>
>by `precipitation.' As the fixing on chemically prepared 
>
>surfaces of the images formed by the camera requires a previous 
>
>arrangement within the focus of the object to be represented, 
>
>for otherwise––as often found in bad photographs—the legs of
>
>the 
>
>sitter might appear out of all proportion with the head, and so on, 
>
>so we have to first arrange our sentences and impress every 
>
>letter to appear on paper in our minds before it becomes fit to be 
>
>read. KH in THE MAHATMA LETTERS

[LM] This, too, has nothing to do with the particular phenomena Bart and I 
were discussing. What has precipitation of simple carbon particles on a two 
dimensional surface (which I have no question about its possibility) have to do 
with construction of functional objects composed of many different atomic and 
molecular substances or parts?  

>===========================================================
>
>
>
>In H.P. Blavatsky's COLLECTED WRITINGS, we find the following:
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>
>
>
>"PRECIPITATION"
>
>
>
>[The Theosophist, Vol. V, Nos. 3-4(51-52), December-January,
>
>1883-1884, p. 64]
>
>
>
>Of all phenomena produced by occult agency in connection 
>
>with our Society, none have been witnessed by a more extended 
>
>circle of spectators or more widely known and commented on through 
>
>recent Theosophical publications than the mysterious production of 
>
>letters. The phenomenon itself has been so well described 
>
>in The Occult World and elsewhere, that it would be useless 
>
>to repeat the description here. Our present purpose is more 
>
>connected with the process than the phenomenon of the mysterious 
>
>formation of letters....
>
>
>
>...the Masters have been pleased to permit the veil to be 
>
>drawn aside a little more, and the modus operandi can thus 
>
>be explained now more fully to the outsider....
>
>
>
>When the Master wants a letter to be written in this way, 
>
>he draws the attention of the chela, whom he selects for 
>
>the task, by causing an astral bell (heard by so many of our Fellows 
>
>and others) to be rung near him just as the despatching telegraph 
>
>office signals to the receiving office before wiring the message. The 
>
>thoughts arising in the mind of the Mahatma are then clothed in word, 
>
>pronounced mentally, and forced along the astral currents he sends 
>
>towards the pupil to impinge on the brain of the latter. Thence they 
>
>are borne by the nerve-currents to the palms of his hand and the tips 
>
>of his finger, which rest on a piece of magnetically prepared paper. 
>
>As the thought-waves are thus impressed on the tissue, materials are 
>
>drawn to it from the ocean of âkas (permeating every atom of the 
>
>sensuous universe), by an occult process, out of place here to 
>
>describe, and permanent marks are left.

[LM] This, too, covers a phenomena that is not in question, and has nothing 
to do with refutation of my or Bart's speculative considerations of different 
possibilities of creating illusions with respect to the alleged disassembly, 
remote transport, and reassembly of complex functional structures of physical 
matter -- such as passing a computer through a wall, or a functional glazed 
porcelain cup and saucer through solid organic earth and the biological roots of 
trees.  

>===============================================================
>
>
>
>Please reread the very last sentence:

Not pertinent to the basis of our 

>=============================================================
>
>
>
>As the thought-waves are thus impressed on the tissue, materials are 
>
>drawn to it from the ocean of âkas (permeating every atom of the 
>
>sensuous universe), by an occult process, out of place here to 
>
>describe, and permanent marks are left.

[LM] Still not pertinent to my statements about functional objects. 

>=================================================================
>
>
>
>>From the Akas, materials are drawn and materialized to the physical
>
>and PERMANENT MARKS are left on the paper.
>
>
>
>Compare PERMANENT MARKS with Leon's phrase ILLUSION OF SOLIDITY.

[LM] Precipitation is an entirely different occult process than disassembly, 
passing matter through matter, and reassembly -- as Bart and I were 
discussing.  

You can stretch your refutations to the ultimate extreme with these endless 
quotes and repetitious statements, and all your doing is throwing up a 
propaganda smokescreen by changing the subject and confusing apples with oranges.   


>And Master KH confirms the above in Letter No. 93(in the first three 
>
>editions of THE MAHATMA LETTERS) when he writes to Sinnett about
>
>
>
>"the precipitation by the chela of the transferred
>
>thought upon (or rather, INTO) paper."
>
>
>
>Vernon Harrison observed this "INTO the paper" phenomenon 
>
>in his study of the Mahatma Letters available from Theosophical
>
>University Press.
>
>
>
>Mentioning the colors of the ink found in the letter, Koot 
>
>Hoomi further says that the colors are "drawn from that exhaustless 
>
>store-house of pigments (as of everything else) the Akasa."
>
>
>
>Notice ALSO what K.H. writes about the precipitation process when he 
>
>refers to the  
>
>
>
>"process used by us when we write inside your closed letters and
>
>uncut pages of books and pamphlets in transit." p. 263 in first
>
>three editions of THE MAHATMA LETTERS.
>
>
>
>All of the above quoted material simply CONFIRMS AND REAFFIRMS
>
>what I have already given from Blavatsky and KH:

[LM] Which proves nothing with respect to the possibilities suggested by Bart 
or myself -- pertaining particularly to the lost and found cup and saucer -- 
that could very well have been a legitimate process of clairvoyance, rather 
than deconstruction, transport through other forms of matter, and 
reconstruction... A process, incidentally, that I know is possible in certain limited cases 
of particular forms of matter -- but not for all -- including complex 
mechanisms, or organic or living forms... Also, if I remember correctly, confirmed and 
reaffirmed by HPB and the Masters. 

>================================================================
>
>
>
>. . . your last note. . . was received in my room about half a
>
>minute after the [akasic] currents for the production of the pillow
>
>dak had been set ready and in full play. KH
>
>
>
>I have to burn the letter with a stone I have (matches and common
>
>fire would never do), and the ashes caught by the current become more
>
>minute than atoms would be, and are re-materialized at any distance
>
>where Master was..... HPB
>
>
>
>Think only (a case with Solovioff at Elberfeld) I sick
>
>in my bed; a letter of his, an old letter of his received in
>
>London and torn by me, rematerialised in my own sight,
>
>I looking at the thing; five or six times in the Russian language,
>
>in Mahatma K.H.'s handwriting in blue , the words taken from my head,
>
>the letter old and crumpled travelling slowly alone (even I could not
>
>see the astral hand of the chela performing the operation) across the
>
>bedroom, then slipping into and among Solovioff's papers who was
>
>writing in the little drawing-room, correcting my manuscripts;
>
>Olcott standing closely by him and having just handled the papers
>
>looking over them with Solovioff. The latter finding it,
>
>and like I flash I see in his head in Russian the thought:
>
>"The old impostor (meaning Olcott) must have put it there!".... HPB
>
>
>
>Suppose a chela receives an order from his Master to precipitate a
>
>letter....Paper and envelope are materialized before him, and he has
>
>only to form and shape theideas into his English and precipitate them.
>
>HPB
>
>
>
>=================================================================
>
>
>
>More examples were given in the following posts:
>
>
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17090
>
>
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17100
>
>
>
>I hope this sets the record straight.

[LM] 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. I can only smile, and put this in the same archive as 
your other diversions, and let the readers decide for themselves what is 
pertinent to Bart's and my original comments, and what is real psychic phenomena and 
what is not. </:-)>

Best wishes,

Leonardo


>Daniel Caldwell
>
>http://hpb.cc
>
>http://theosophy.info