Theos-Talk Archives (August 1997 Message tt00027)

Wes Amerman wrote:

> I agree that this was one difference between Blavatsky and
> Darwin, but I think it also involves a more basic premise: the
> question of Consciousness *per se.* That is, Theosophy teaches
> that there must be Beings that need and develop the Forms for the
> purposes of their evolution. Science will never accept "purpose"
> alone, since, in Western terms, that has always implied a
> Personal God, and Science long ago (rightly) rejected that
> notion.

And one of the current duties of Theosophy, in my opinion, is to
show scientists and philosophers that there is another view; one
which does not require an anthropomorphic, or even external, God.
If we cannot speak their language, however, they will never
listen to us.

> Rich wrote: "That would imply that those 3rd race people were our
> genetic ancestors, even if CURRENT genetic understanding doesn't
> support such a theory." I would concur with that conclusion. All
> of humanity of this Round are ONE family. Does anyone have a
> handy reference to share?

That is what the Neanderthal discovery implies; before,
Neanderthal "Man" was considered to indicate to many scientists
that humanity evolved independently in several different places.
That it turns out that Neanderthal "Man" was a failed
evolutionary offshoot takes away that evidence.

> > Where do Blavatsky or the Mahatmas state that trans-species
> > reincarnation does not happen?
>
> Bart, what species did you have in mind? I think it's a pretty
> definite teaching in Theosophy: "Once a man, always a man." (Man,
> in this sense, referring to Manas, the self-conscious thinker).
> Nor do we reincarnate back into the animal kingdom: "The door is
> shut below us," HPB says. I think "trans-species reincarnation"
> is an oxymoron: Man (manas) is the "species," if you will, by
> virtue of our thinking principle, not our physical bodies.

OK. But the manas cannot exist without an appropriate matter
container. What I am saying is do not confuse the manas with the
container currently holding it. It is my belief (and it does not
contradict proven scientific knowledge) that when humanity
evolves to a point that the shells are no longer capable of
handling a further evolved manas, then another shell must be
formed, and that shell does not have to be physically descended from
the previous shell. We cannot reincarnate down, but we CAN
reincarnate UP.

> Bart took exception to Rich's statement, "The best thing about
> modern science is that if you don't like some- thing, just hang
> on five minutes, the 'facts' will soon be different." Rich may be
> a little flippant, but I think his statement is generally
> accurate. I think Rich would agree with Bart when he says that
> theosophy "can't pretend that science is still at the 19th
> century level," and that "understanding science takes work." No
> serious theosophist, I think, would say that "science is bunk."

But the statement, "The best thing about modern science is that
if you don't like something, just hang on five minutes, the
'facts' will soon be different." is just another way of saying
"Science is bunk".