Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tt00058)

To Theos-Talk subscribers

Copied from Theos-l

MORE CONTINUING COMMENTS ON THE MAHATMA LETTERS,
SCIENCE, ATLANTIS AND LEMURIA

PART II

Compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 9:20:39 EDT
> From: "K Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
> Subject: Re: The Masters and Science
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> Although I fear that responding to your questions and comments
> may lead me into a flame zone, they are irresistible:
>
> [citing Chuck and me]
>
> that the scientific discrepancies in the ML can be explained
> because the Masters are neither physical scientists nor
> omniscient.  I agree with that statement.  However -- it raises
> even more disturbing questions.
>
> > BUT - that was not the answer.  The writer instead has the air of
> > someone who claims to know these things and claims to know the
> > answers to Sinnett's questions.  Thus I find the the following to
> > be likely scenarios:
> >
> > I.  The letters were written by HPB.  Like the ML writer, she
> > made similar pronouncements on science - claiming often to know
> > better than the scientists of the day.
>
> "Written by" seems to me to cut the Gordian knot.  Despite
> instances of "precipitation," apparent or real, most of the
> letters were written by the hand of HPB, according to Sinnett's
> own conclusions.  But in what state of consciousness, conveying a
> body of information that was to what extent her own creation and
> to what extent something she was accessing from others? So even
> if she wrote them physically, the possible intervention or at
> least advice of Masters is still an unknown.
>
> > II.  The ML writer was deliberately setting him/her self up as an
> > authority on science in order to somehow further Sinnett's
> > spiritual growth.
> >
> > III.  The ML writer was part of a "conspiracy" on the part of the
> > Masters carried out for the benefit of our planet to combat
> > materialism (or to some other mysterious end) that involved
> > disemenating a false science called theosophy.
>
> "False science" makes it seem like they knew it was false and
> wanted to disseminate it anyway.  Seems more likely to me that
> HPB was sincere as were her teachers, about the doctrines at
> least.
>
> > I find scenario II unlikely, as I cannot comprehend what
> > spiritual benefit Sinnett could derive from the elliptic answers
> > that he got to his questions.  Unless it was, so that he should
> > quit bugging the Masters and rely on his own horse sense, because
> > they are only feeding him nonsense.
>
> Following Sinnett's life story through his own words leads me to
> the definite conclusion that receiving Mahatma letters was not a
> good thing for him.  He went from being a responsible, sane
> person to being a self-deluded crank, and stayed that way (as HPB
> certainly seemed to feel) thereafter.
>
> > If scenario (I) is excluded because the physical evidence (which
> > I haven't studied) is against it, we're left with scenario (III).
> >
> > Actually I find no difficulty with scenario III and in the
> > possibility that theosophy is an elaborate hoax perpetrated by
> > certain individuals for the good of humanity
>
> Again, "hoax" implies deliberately false information, and I don't
> see where you are getting that or what evidence would support it.
>
> > and that HPB could have been an unsuspecting victim in this
> > scheme.
>
> That seems highly implausible in the sense that she believed in
> doctrines that were given her by people who knew them to be
> false.
>
> > But in that case, I wouldn't bother studying the material at
> > least not the 19th century stuff, unless it can be independently
> > verified.  Never mind the scientific pronouncements, even the
> > occult teaching would be suspect.
>
> Of course it is "suspect"-- meaning you should not accept it at
> face value.  Somewhere HPB said that all religions are false on
> the surface but true in their depths.  That applies to her own
> teachings as well.
>
> > I suspect that somewhere in Tibet, some individuals are right now
> > having quite a good laugh.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> The doctrines in the Mahatma letters on rounds and races, 7
> levels of everything, etc.  are clearly not Tibetan in origin
> (flames coming on that) but rather Kabbalistic-Sufic-Isma`ili in
> lineage, with a mixture of 19th century science.  All that
> business about consciousness evolving through different planes,
> humans never being reborn as animals, everything evolving toward
> a great reunion with the source-- is Western in nature.  If we
> were to look for an extant group of people who really believe
> something similar in essence to the ML cosmology, I think we
> should best look in the Pamirs where there is a surviving
> Isma`ili presence in an area with some interaction with Tibetan
> Buddhism.  The latitude of HPB's definition of "Tibet" allowed
> her to refer to Leh, Ladakh as in "central Tibet."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 05:13:40 -0700
> From: "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@theosophy.com>
> Subject: Reply to Paul K. Regarding THE MAHATMA LETTERS
>
> Paul K:
>
> It was interesting to read your analysis of THE MAHATMA LETTERS,
> and your theory that they are part of a hoax played upon the West
> by the Mahatmas, a hoax including a phoney or made-up set of
> theosophical doctrines.
>
> A cursory reading of your posting would make it seem like an
> attack on Theosophy. But you are simply expressing what seems
> obvious and true from a person of a certain background. And
> there are more people in the world that hold that background than
> hold what I might call the traditional theosophical view.
>
> Theosophy is not, though, a house of cards, standing upon some
> scientific tidbits, ready to collapse with the slightest
> perturbation. It does not stand or fall on any particular stray
> comment made regarding science in some book.
>
> You may be able to find a few points and either disprove them, as
> they seem to have been said, or make a strong argument against
> them. That might indicate that a particular writer was not 100
> percent right in everything said. Or it could mean that there
> are other interpretations of a particular passage, something less
> obvious being written about.
>
> When some people hear a point or two under attack, they might be
> swayed, and change their beliefs. Others may be rigid in their
> thinking, "true believers", and unswayed by anything they hear or
> experience in life. But I'd suggest that there is also a third
> category with Theosophists, some who have a view of things where
> their thinking is based on a solid foundation, one that depends
> on different ways of thinking about and experiencing life.
>
> The modern or postmodern paradigm or worldview has basic
> assumptions about the world, things that are assumed true,
> assumptions regarding the way the world is and how it works.
> These determine what is "obviously true" and what m ight be
> rejected out of hand. So does Theosophy, and they are quite far
> apart.
>
> While some degree of truth and reality can be achieved by modern
> science, when it focused on the physical world, the biggest part
> of life is unseen, and an understanding of it requires the
> observer, the knowner, the person to grow and achieve some degree
> of spiritual progress.
>
> You mention that you're not sure if the non-scientific materials
> in THE MAHATMA LETTERS make sense. It's true that a certain
> background of study is necessary to appreciate the letters.
> Theosophical writings based on the source literature will explain
> and amplify what you would read. Some later theosophical
> writers, thought, taught different ideas and if your background
> of reading in Theosophy solely consisted of their works, you
> might very well have trouble making sense of the letters.
>
> Another aspect of making sense of the materials depends upon the
> approach that you take, and what you've made of them. I'd find
> the literature as a bona fide approach to the spiritual, somewhat
> along Jnana Yoga lines. There's the experience of reading and
> book learning of the literature. Then, I'd say, there can come a
> further step, one of "taking the dive" or "crossing the abyss".
>
> The initial experience of Theosophy, as something to simply
> learn, brings one to a plateau, a point where there are no
> further rewards for study and learning. This can either be
> "broken through", like a koan is solved, or it can remain
> impassible, until one's energy is exhausted, and one's interest
> in the philosophy fades, and it takes on an arbitrary,
> nonsensical nature.
>
> The experience of "going further" is akin to having an inner
> teacher, a source of knowing things. It has something to do with
> different ways of approaching wisdom, perhaps the generic
> ability to think in different ways. It might be described
> somewhat in terms of symbolic thought, thinking in metaphor,
> intuition, but these terms don't really work very well.
>
> Regarding some of the facts that you mentioned in THE MAHATMA
> LETTERS, we discussed Atlantis a bit. The velocity of light does
> change. Light can be either a wave or a particle. As a
> particle, a photon, it might take hundreds of thousands of years
> to make its way to the surface of the sun (according to an
> article in DISCOVER). This is certainly slower than it's nearly
> average speed in space. The statement in the letters regarding
> the sun having iron was "the Sun is full of iron vapours", not
> that it substantially consisted of iron.
>
> As to the Sun's temperature, I did not come across the reference
> in the letters. It's 5800 Kelvin on the surface, 15,000,000
> Kelvin in the interior, and 4300 Kelvin in its sunspots, which
> are *relatively* cold. Another aspect on "cold" has to do with
> the absence of a body to act upon. If I were to shine flashlight
> in outer space, with no object to reflect it back, it would seem
> dark, as thought I had no light. Similarly, something would seem
> "cold", or lacking in heat, in the absence of some object to be
> heated. A third aspect might relate to how the sun might seen if
> actually visited, presumably on a higher plane.
>
> THE MAHATMA LETTERS were private, to Sinnett (primarily, although
> a few were to Hume). They were not reviewed and written, I
> assume, with the idea of public dissemination. It's said that
> THE SECRET DOCTRINE was the join production of HPB and her
> Teachers. They reviewed the materials, as they were being
> written. Personal letters aren't subject to the same degree of
> scrutiny as a major literary work intended to be the cornerstone
> of a new effort to enlighten the West. We're all inclined to
> make more mistakes in letters than in materials intended for
> production. So this may partly explain any errors of fact that
> may have appeared.
>
> Also, certain materials may not have been directly explained. KH
> mentions in the letters that a student would have to come to
> them, or settle for crumbs. He also mentions that their
> teachings, if told plainly, to the uninitiated, would sound like
> gibberish. This is why myths, blinds, and other methods of
> communicating ideas in some exoteric form are used.
>
> A reader must have the necessary background, the necessary
> training, the inner connection to various doctrines in order to
> recognize and benefit from such writings. The material is
> plainly presented "for those with eyes to see", but also veiled,
> giving the appearance of some foolish religious or mythological
> stories, or perhaps some arbitrary set of metaphysical rules and
> assertions.
>
> I don't think that Theosophy is too concerned with making
> pronouncements regarding science. And although the Mahatmas may
> have a generic ability to know things, and have experiences of
> life on this and other worlds that we may not have the slightest
> notion of, they can certainly learn from it as well. It deals
> with but a tiny corner of this vast multiverse that we live in,
> but it does have, these past few centuries, a good track record
> of advancing knowledge of the material world.
>
> When in the theosophical literature we see mention of scientific
> items, or comments on mathematics and the physical world, we have
> to be careful to understand the context of the statement. What
> is being said? It may not be what it appears, as first glance.
> Even the reference to specific numbers may have hidden meanings,
> or special ways of looking at them. Consider the number "777".
> It could mean that specific number, or something else, like, for
> instance, the number seven, at three scales of being, or the
> completion of a threefold cycle, or a cycle with three scales,
> somewhat like 24-60-60 would mean, with reference to a clock, in
> talking of the time in a day.
>
> How is anything of this to be proved, any of the theosophical
> doctrines or what I've said of them? They involve things that go
> beyond the ability of a scientist to detect, with the best of
> instruments and experimental design. They involve something
> experiential. The person that would know has to tread the Path
> and to change, grow, and experience life. And with that growth
> and those experiences comes both knowledge and wisdom, dealing
> with things that will never appear in any college textbook or be
> posted on any web page.
>
> -- Eldon
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 08:26:46 -0500
> From: "Paul M Kieniewicz" <pmmkien@main.com>
> Subject: Atlantis et al.
>
> Regarding my comments on the Mahatma Letters, Eldon Tucker writes:
>
> >Theosophy is not, though, a house of cards, standing upon some
> >scientific tidbits, ready to collapse with the slightest
> >perturbation. It does not stand or fall on any particular stray
> >comment made regarding science in some book.
> >
>
> Actually -- a point I'm making is that the scientific titbits are
> not titbits at all but comprise a large portion of the 19th
> century literature - everything from the Cosmogenesis,
> Anthropogenesis - to the later clairvoyant investigations of CWL.
> It's all science , and pronouncements are often made regarding
> physical science.  There's Atlantis, Lemuria, the rounds and
> races (that relates to anthropology), Keeley's work, Astronomy.
> There are also pronouncements on history - what the Chaldeans did
> or didn't believe.  Of course that a large portion of the work is
> devoted to symbolic and occult business - so called occult
> science, but most of that can't be checked, so you've no way of
> telling if it's all BS.  But the stuff that can be checked should
> be checked.
>
> In the 20+ years that I've been associated with theosophists, I
> have noticed that most theosophists distance themselves from the
> scientific pronouncements and are uneasy about them - possibly
> because so many of them are plainly wrong.  I discussed this once
> with John Algeo, asking - why the new edition of CWL's "The Inner
> Life" had been so severely edited.  The answer was that the
> edited portions contained material that was found to disagree
> with the present findings of science.
>
> To me, it all smacks of a coverup of sorts.  Theosophists have a
> tendency when faced with such a discrepancy either to edit the
> discrepancy out of future editions, or explain them away with
> statements such as: "Atlantis is only a myth", "The Masters
> weren't being literal", "This is an occult truth and not a
> physical one." Or "You, Paul K., have the wrong background and
> can't be a useful judge of these weighty matters..."
>
>  These are to my mind all attempts to evade the fact that we are
>  unwilling to put Theosophy to the test, and when we are faced
>  with discrepancies - we are unwilling to admit that these exist.
>  Because IF - Atlantis never had any physical (not to mention
>  etheric or other) existence, the basic teachings DO fall down
>  like a house of cards.  If the few statements that can be
>  checked in the teaching turn out to be wrong, then the ones that
>  can't be checked are probably just as wrong.
>
> How about "There is no religion higher than truth"?
>
> Paul K.

Probably to be continued.........!!!!