Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00114)

In a message dated 07/01/04 4:26:20 AM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>Leon, you wrote among many other things:
>
>
>
>=========================================================
>
>
>
>It's really quite pointless (for me) to discuss 
>
>theosophical concepts with anyone who blindly accepts 
>
>everything written about it by its promulgators as
>
>being absolutely true -- since it comes from the 
>
>mouth of supposed authorities, or people one accepts as 
>
>such... A method of learning that HPB said was an
>
>improper way to approach theosophy -- which should 
>
>be taken with a grain of salt, or as a theory only, 
>
>and questioned thoroughly, until one has subjectively....
>
>
>
>==========================================================
>
>
>
>So are you suggesting that I BLINDLY accept EVERYTHING
>
>written about it [THEOSOPHY] by its promulgators
>
>as being ABSOLUTELY true??? If that is your argument, 
>
>then you simply don't understand where I am coming from.

Maybe not. But it certainly seems likely on the surface -- judging by your 
response to logical speculations or presumptions of possible alternative means 
of creating psychic phenomena or, alternatively, stage magic illusions, or 
even hypnotic and other "Glamorizing" techniques -- with nothing more than 
hearsay quotes of witnesses or general statements, taken literally, of HPB and the 
Masters. All of which, IMO, could (or should) be taken with a grain of salt... 
And, judgment about, or acceptance or denial, reserved, until one obtained a 
deeper knowledge of the actual occult processes (and their limitations) behind 
such psychic phenomena... Particularly, of the type originally reported by 
possibly misled witnesses who can only describe what they think they are seeing 
directly in front of their eyes. They certainly could not know the method 
that enabled them to see any sort of psychic apparition or manifestation -- which 
is nothing more than a superficial form or shape. Nor could they know the 
interior structure of such shape -- or whether or not a real lost and found 
object, or an intentionally psychically disassembled, transported, and reassembled 
object, was what they think they observed. 

Besides, if those witnesses assumed that a psychic phenomena was an actual 
teleportation of matter through matter, I doubt that HPB or the Masters would 
have denied it at the time -- even if it was actually of a different, and less 
impressive (yet still "psychic") sort of phenomena. In fact, it's quite 
apparent that they (as most occultists) would beat around the bush telling partial 
truths about such phenomena without revealing anything about the actual 
processes used. Obviously, to any occultist, this route of course, out of necessity 
to maintain their "blinds," would serve to "imply the lie" or reinforce the 
misperception in the minds of their uninitiated readers. This technique is 
easily recognized by any initiated occultist who understands how carefully, HPB 
and the Master constructed all their statements about occult phenomena, in order 
to intentionally obfuscate the correlation of forces, and the actual methods 
of the application of the will. Therefore, any literal interpretation of 
their writings concerning any psychic phenomenon and the methods used for their 
production, would be entirely misleading.

Did HPB ever explain to anyone in so many words (in writing, that is) the 
actual method she used to "find" that lost cup and saucer? Seems to me that all 
the talk about it was nothing more than ex post facto memories or presumptive 
and prejudicial observations by gullible people who could have easily been 
fooled into thinking a simple clairvoyant lost and found situation, or 
psychically produced illusion relating only to the outer superficial form of the 
objects, was an actual disassembly, etheric transport, and reassembly of a solid, 
multi substance, object -- which both the Masters and HPB would not deny -- since 
their whole purpose was to reinforce the beliefs in their disciples of the 
truth of all the theosophical teachings, while preventing any revelation to the 
uninitiated readers of the actual occult methods used for the production of 
any such phenomena. And, since such complex phenomena may be quite possible in 
certain limited cases -- they wouldn't be actually lying (although they might 
be dissembling a bit:-) if they just made vague and generalized statements 
about it in their exoteric writings, that could mislead the casual or literal 
reader in thinking that such (actuallty undisclosed) methods referred to the 
particular phenomeana in question. 

>Since you have made what many readers might take as
>
>quite ASSERTIVE statements about what is and is not
>
>possible including what is in Blavatsky's writings,
>
>I thought it would be quite helpful for others readers
>
>(if not for you) to see your statements set side by
>
>side with various statements by HPB, KH, Judge and other early
>
>Theosophists.

This would be fine if and when there is also considered all the explanations 
given for those statements made, and the reasoning behind them. Un
fortunately, each of those persons mentioned would have different points of view and 
different motives behind the statements made that would have to be carefully 
examined before they are taken as any sort of gospel. (Just as my statements would 
have to be taken in context with their qualifications, limitations and further 
explanations, and so examined and rationally considered.) 

As it is, I think you deserve a commendation for posting those articles and 
quotes by HPB and the Masters, so that we all can learn a bit more as we 
correlate, think about, and discuss their probable much deeper meanings, as well as 
the limitations and qualifications behind them. 

As for all those other so called "early theosophists" (with the exception, 
possibly, of Judge, although I'm not so sure he couldn't be fooled by HPB :-) -- 
I have no reason to believe any of them knew what they were talking about 
from an occult point of view, or even understood what they think they observed or 
experienced. 

Best wishes,

Leon