Re: Theos-World SHOW MAHATMA LETTERS CONTAIN GENUINE TEACHINGS.
- 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.
In a message dated 11/22/02 4:19:36 AM, brianmuehlbach@... writes:
>"OPINIONS about theosophy and(Snip repeats of previous mailings from BAG, B/BM, etc.)
>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: