Theos-Talk Archives (August 1997 Message tt00046)

Dear Estrella:

What are the "postulates of theosophy" that can be invoked to
consider this ?

I would use the "7 Principles.," the "SD version of the history
of Evolution," and to these I would add what is available, most
recently in the annals of archaeology, paleontology, paleography,
etc...

There has to be a bridge somewhere between the facts of modern
discovery and research, and then, the THEORIES which scientific
theorists and philosophers have evolved to explain the
linksbetween those discoveries and facts and the presumption that
Nature is always operating under laws (which scientists try to
discover)..

And there is, to me, the exact point at which most of us seem to
notice the "departure of Theosophical doctrines" from those of
the Science we have been taught.

Most of us, taught Darwinian evolution from childhood as a FACT,
have not yet realized that it is a THEORY, which is constantly
being revised. From the time when we first heard of this at
school to the present, the dates of mankind's origin have been
constantly pushed back from a few hundred thousand to several
million years.

And this change relates only to the dating of physical fossils.
It is important to note that Theosophy offers as doctrine the
concept of INTELLIGENCE being antecedent to a physical form in
which it would work and live. [ This would take into account the
seemingly myrific tales about "giants, "floods," the "sinking of
Atlantis," the gradual engulfment of Lemuria into the Pacific
Ocean," etc...]

Modern science is only gradually approaching to the concept that
Theosophy earlier advanced concerning the "astral body." We have
today "morpho-genetic fileds," and the idea that the lines of
magnetic force that extend in and around us all may observe laws
of their own with which we are not yet familiar. Instantaneous
thought transference is one of them. There is moe that can be
adduced if needed. "Phantom pain from phantom limbs," is common
enough to warrent thinking of a residual effect from an astral
limb after the amputation of the physical one.

Just recenlty the Theosphical Publishing House in Pasadena issued
a monograph by Dr. Vernon Harrison in which microscopic
examination revealed that "leters from a Master" sent in the
1880s were of a physical nature that was extraordinary for those
times. Instad of the writing being a continuous sweep of ink on
the surface of the paper, it was found at least in one case, to
consist of closely packed but distinct small parallel lines (such
as those that interfernece photometry makes) -- so that in the
"precipitation" of this message a method of physical reproduction
was used for which the technology has only recently been
developed. Furthermore, the "ink" or contrasting color used is
found to be part of the paper surface, and not overlying it.
Curious.

I have found that one of the advnatages of Theosophy is its
eclectic nature, as it perceives and uses analogies and
discoveries made in all disciplines, draws them together and
presnts us with a logical coherency. [ My work has been as a
science editor for many years working with the Van Nostrand
Company, so I have been in personal touch with experimenters,
discoverers, writers, in mostof the branches of Science. This
area is familiar to me. ]

It seems somehat unfair to assume that either Blavatsky or
Nostradamus had little or no idea of the maning of what they
wrote. Of course they wrote with a different audience in mind.
But HPB wrote so as to open the minds of all those who read and
studied her writings to wonder about the gaps and lacunae of
scientific theories, and the claims to authority that rested on
such insecure bases. You are no doubt familiar with the mehods
of instruction for which English is best fitted as a language.
Science, philosophy, logic, psychology hae each evolved a "local"
dialect that serves as a kind of short-cut for those who are
exchanging ideas in those fields. Yet it is english, whether
18th 19th or 21st centurie versions that links them all and makes
them understandable.

Having been educated some 60 years ago, my link to the 19th
century may be closer than most who have been educated
recently--and I have noticed that for them it is a distinct
effort to force their minds and understanding to go back and
meticulously examine the maning of what was said 50, 100 or 150
years ago. But no serious scholar refuses this kind of challenge
for the "ease" of putting those ideas into the modern lingo,
which is, as I look at it, very superficial indeed.

The language of fundamental science is as different as day and
night from the current science spoken of on a popular TV program.
However, for us there are some of the KCET programs which have
depth and worth, and demand from us mental discipline and
consideration, instad of the lulling of a passtime of amusing
stories that may or may not be true. The effort to know is
always syuperior to the right to be amused, just as a scientific
text is quite different from a work of fiction. Have you ever
read Mr. Judge's 32 page booklet entitled : AN EPITOME OF
THEOSOPHY ?

So long as Science sticks to fact (all the facts, and not only
those they select to bolster hypotheses) there is no problem.
But I have noticed that there is a tendency among some to conceal
those discoveries and facts which challenge early, and their
specific theories. Why? Where is the openness of mind gone ?
Wher is true curiosity?

All of us end up quite confused. Who shall we trust ? We are all
of us, finally driven to trust only that which we can prove to
ourselves. You will say to me that it is impossible in one life
to prove everything, and I would agree. However we can also
apply our sharpest logic to the meaning behind every claim made
and every statement offered. But I have found that any statement
made has to be carefully correlated to its antecedents. We have
to have a sound basis in the fundamentals of both Science and
Theosophy, if we are going to copntrast them. I would not
contend with you as to your grounding in science, but what do you
know about Theosopy ? I mean its fundamentals ? I am not really
directing this sharp question at yhou personally, but it is one
that we all ought to ask each other. What am I sure of ?

We are all of us prone to accept as veracious the pronouncements
of 'authority," perhaps on the basis that such eminence in study
Implies a high index of moral worth as also the quality of great
honesty. Unfortunately I have been fooled too often in the past.
So I am very wary, and invite those who study Science and
Theosophy to be wary of authorities who make claims concerning
them both. And, to be fair, this aplies tome and what I write.
How can you prove it is right or fair ? You will have to
challenge my statements and seek for some link that makes them
either wise or foolish. There is a wide differnec between the
usage of a mehod, and the basis from which one starts to work.

In such a comparative study, one has to gather all evidence, and
partial evidence leaves us, if inaccurate, "holding the bag." In
fact we have only our own lazines to thank for being "out on a
limb."

Evidence of the "astral body" has been around for so long that it
is not something one would pooh-pooh. But who has the temerity,
or the courage, to truly investigate? What did "Kirillian"
(spelling ?) photography demonstrate ? It showeed evidence of a
residual outline of some kind of force which out-lived physical
removal of materials. Why ? No true scientist ever shelves a
mystery, but places all he can find most carefully in an index to
which he mentally often refers as he seeks for the laws that
serve to reconcile the abnormal to the normal.

It must be posited as a basis for all true Science that Laws run
and rule Nature as a whole. The Scientist studies the facts of
nature, which are already establsihed there, and which he cannot
make changes to. Experience in studying Nature down the many
years of history has only served to demonstrate the trustworthy
nature of those laws. All Science depends on them, and so they
are taught.

But theory and hypothesis is always based on partial analysis,
and some of it entirely on the opinions of those who evolve them,
whether famous or unknown.

If you wish to remain true to Science (a record of observations)
then you cannot throw out any hypothesis, or fact without due
analysis. It is not a matter of personal preference, but of
being sincere and honest in study. The true Scientist always
maintains an open mind, and is quite careless of what his "peers"
may think of him and his work. But for some that is a luxury
which sometimes conflicts with the necessities of maintaining
one's "stature" among one's "peers."

This may sound curious or annoying, and if you wish to pursue
this line of investigation, then let's have a good discussion on
the philosophy and theory of discovery scientifically, and also
expose the purposes for such work.

Best wishes, Dallas