Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • leonmaurer@aol.com
    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
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 26, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      >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.)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.