Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00010)

Dear Thoa:O:

Many have felt as you do, also that there seems to be a conflict between
what she offers as the ancient doctrines and Science.  I too was brought up
in the study of science and its theories.  In fact I worked for many years
as "Asia representative of the Van Nostrand Co. - and that included
separate publishing and manuscript search, etc...

I found that the reading of the KEY TO THEOSOPHY put me at least into the
general "know" of what was being presented in Theosophical doctrine.  As
there are differences between what our Science teaches us, it became a
challenge to me to find out exactly what those differences were and why.

No one will disagree, least of all Theosophy about the OBSERVATIONS of
Science.  But the THEORIES and the HYPOTHESES that Science has evolved to
explain matters which they have not been able to DIRECTLY OBSERVE, i.e.,
pre-history and evolutionary processes, as well as ethical and moral
effects, I have noticed to be constantly are subject to revision.

I strongly object to being taught as a child certain things as FACTS, and
then find later on that those are only surmises and are being revised.  Why
should I have to spend time remembering false things ?  I could have been
told at the beginning that those are only guesses, based on such evidence
as is so far found?

Both Science and Theosophy study Nature.  But Science, as we now know it
has an antiquity of about 300 years.  It has devised many important tools
to use to measure and to date the past.  But it has no direct observation.

Theosophy claims  ( SD I 272-3) to be a record condensed from observations
of those who lived in the past.  Those who lived in that past were us.
Reincarnations of the spirit/soul is the missing link not only as regards
those experiences, but also in the matter of the evolution of the physical
body of man.

In that latter matter Theosophy claims that the "apes" desended from Man,
rather than Man ascended from the apes.  Some extremely accurate
physiologists comparing the bony structure of men and apes concluded the
skeleton of two species showed that man could not possibly ascend from the
ape structure, but that the reverse was possible.  Apparently that study
has been forgotten or suppressed by those who liked the Darwin/Huxley
theory.

As to Science, I had to be very broad, rather than narrow in study, so the
many different aspects of comparison to be found in the  SD and in Isis
attracted me, as I was interested in all aspects of knowledge.  In fact, if
one is too much of a specialist there is a tendency to disregard other
salient and important aspects of learning.

As to using other writers who may serve to you and others as "interpreters"
of Theosophical doctrines, I would say that every one who has written since
HPB's time has put in their views and the result is that to some extent
original and pure Theosophy as it comes almost entirely through her from
the Masters of Wisdom, is to that extent distorted.  even what I write and
discuss ought to be looked at from the point of view that I only know some
aspects of Theosophy and have adopted may be unconsciously, those aspects
that appeal to me and I have neglected others.

So in choosing the say-so of one or another writer I have had to run
comparisons with the basics and fundamental ideas that are presented to us
as "propositions" and not as dogmas of Theosophical importance.  HPB noting
that her students tended to place her writings on a "pedestal" tried to get
them to understand that even her presentation was tinged with this kind of
alteration.  She wanted them to learn and to think for themselves and no
swallow, or adopt wholesale what she offered.  So she tried again and again
to tell them to think things out independently.

To me the most important aspect of learning to be gained from Theosophy is
the concept of the integration of all aspects of life.  The bond is more of
a moral one than anything else, for when we consider that every thing we do
affects the rest of our environment, and also to some extent the Universe
we have to agree that the least friction and confusion that we make is
better than anything else.

If we perceive as a matter of total resiprocity that our motives affect
first of all our own senses, and the refinement or coarsening of them is
the result of our motivation and the actions that succeed our thoughts and
feelings, then we may start viewing the importance of looking at the world
in terms of brotherhood instead of the isolation of family, race, religion,
politics, and the very unfortunate history of repression and victimization
that has followed the paths of nations, tribes, races, and individuals ...
We live altogether too much in the past and seem to lose ourselves in
treasuring the wrongs done to us, instead of the benefits we received and
those which we can distribute to others.


without exception those great men, prophets, sages, reformers, etc... who
are looked up to as examples of human excellence taught only one main
thing:

	"Treat others as you would desire they treated you."

All the rest is discussion and argument of personal rights and wrongs which
have little real permanence.

So Theosophy is to me that great cementing body of information and
reasoning which enables me to tract with greater accuracy the probable
effect of my motives and actions.  And to make sure of my own integrity, I
strive to analyze and extrapolate at the same time, so that causes and
effects may be equally objective to the mind's eye.

You speak of the consideration of the "supernatural."  There is quite a
large body of evidence for its being recognized down the ages.  Just
consider that all we know of the physical properties of an element or a
compound are recorded by observation in respect to that particular chosen
subject.  It is objective in the way in which it is made, used or appears.
But when you have seen it, and probed its nature, and made readings as to
its qualities and uses, where does this information go ?  It goes into our
minds.  There in an entirely subjective environment ( supernatural ?) it is
reviewed, revised, checked, questioned, and finally the publication to the
world of specific findings or applications is made.

If the individual so researching is a genius, a quantum leap may take him
to seeing a hitherto concealed relationship with other materials in various
relations other than the normal, as for instance under the barrage of
pressure, electrical conditions, heat, etc...  The important thing to
realize is that it always takes a subjective approach to make precise an
objective phenomenon.  Further the construction of inventions or the
discovery of new and unexpected properties is always a question of mental
activity.

The story goes that Edison was well aware of the curious phenomenon of the
inner Ego working even when the physical body was asleep.  In order to try
to catch some of its insights to a problem he would allow himself to fall
asleep, sitting up with a tea-spoon held between thumb and first finger.
When sleep occurred the spoon would fall and the clatter would arose him to
wakefulness, whereupon he examined his memories of whatever dream he just
had, and in quite a few cases such memories triggered in his mind a
solution to a problem he was seeking.  Others have used this and other
methods to examine their dreams.  Dreams are one of the door ways to the
supernatural as you call it.  We do not know much about them, why they
occur, what happens when the consciousness abandons the body.  What does
"being tired" mean, etc...

What is the true "animator" of the physical body ?  Why do the structures
of the body" skeleton, nervous and blood conveying systems arrange
themselves as they do ?  How is it that the various organs are formed ?
What causes the healing of a wound ?  What is the real power of the mind ?
what is a "thought?" as opposed to or in  addition to a "feeling," or a
"desire ?"

There are many questions about ourselves which we do not have any definite
answers for.  Yes, we can tell more or less what makes us ill or well, what
drugs can do to cure or to alter the sharpness of consciousness, or even to
induce trances and "altered states of consciousness," but then, what have
we learned ?  we can tinker and make changes, but the true motive power and
the action of desire and will are unclear.  There is not question that
these areas of research are under investigation in dozens of laboratories,
physical and psychological.  Every true medical man will tell you that
medicine is a growing a developing science, and they constantly meet
mysteries and unfamiliar territories.  Man is not a machine and although
there are approximations between any two of us, we are all different,
because we are free-will chasers and are reshaping ourselves constantly.
What is unitary ?  the Sense of Selfhood:  "I am I."  the rest is in
constant change.

I found that the ideas and propositions of Theosophy  bring these together
and give coherence to the purpose of our living in general.  To the extent
that we are given ideas which we can test without having them imposed as
axioms on us we will feel comfortable with them.  if they become matters of
dogma or of outward performance (ritual) or of creed (professed belief) ,
or if we are asked to agree to some "party line" then we are in grave
trouble, and if that ever happens the so-called "theosophy" of such a time
will no longer be living, but will have been destroyed, gone under-ground,
and it will as a dried and desiccate specimen be used to fool those who are
too lazy to search and think for themselves.

Now that is a lot to say, and perhaps some of it is quite wrong.

Best wishes -- now it is your turn, or anyone else's,  to respond, I hope
Dal


                                      Dallas  TenBroeck
               dalval@nwc.net                        (818) 222-8024
                                   23145 Park Contessa,
                             Calabasas, Ca., 91302, USA.

----------
> From: "Thoa Thi-Kim Tran" <thoalight@aol.com>
> Subject: To Dallas
> Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 10:22 AM
>
> Dear Dallas,
>
> I have several books by the Mme., SD I & II, Isis I & II, Key, Glossary,
> and maybe some others hidden in the nooks and crannies.  Also close to
the
> tradition of Blavatsky, I have almost all the de Puruckers.  Due to her
> writing style of cramming the book with diverse information (like
throwing
> clothes into a suitcase and then sitting on it to close it), I was never
> able to read SD I & II from beginning to end.  I've been using them as
> references.  I would read a page, a big question mark would arise, I then
> pick up other books (more understandable and well-written) to read in
> reference to that.  It's a very slow process.  It's a BIG study of
> comparative religion, science, history, the supernatural and
anthropology!
> Because some things do not agree with my knowledge of science and
> anthropology, I often had to wonder whether there's an esoteric meaning
to
> them.  And people wonder why some theosophists aren't reading SD I and
II.
>
> I do appreciate your giving out references.  I also find value in people
> figuring things out for themselves.  Both ways of obtaining information
are
> valid.  Without the former, we would not have the foundation with which
to
> build our knowledge and creative power.  Without the latter, there would
be
> no creative power.  The creative process, to me, is the result of what IS
> KNOWN passing through you, me, we, synthesizing to form THE NEW.  That's
> why I shake my head at the debate between giving out referenced
information
> and personal information.
>
> I find time to read the posts because knowledge in is important to me.  I
> cannot respond because my rushing will not do justice to what I want to
say
> and would not be a proper response to the posts.  I could send in some
> jokes. :o)  Poetry, perhaps. :o)).
>
> I'm glad to hear that you are doing good.  Write on, Dallas!
>
> Thoa :o)
>
>
>
>
>
> >Dear Thoa: O
> >
> >Glad to hear from you, and quite understand the pressures.  There is so
> >much to do one has to time-fit many things.  Here too.
> >
> >Do you have any books by Mme. Blavatsky to refer to with you ?
Sometimes I
> >can draw attention to things already there which can clarify better than
I
> >could write -- there is some value increment in going direct to the
source,
> >and I would prefer sending you to look where I have also browsed.
> >
> >My health is now quite restored -- bronchitis turned to pneumonia, and
> >shortness of breath was pronounced -- used new antibiotic Ziporex to get
> >rid of infection which was preventing O2 and CO2 exchange in lungs.
> >
> >Best wishes,            Dallas
> >
> >                                      Dallas  TenBroeck
> >               dalval@nwc.net                        (818) 222-8024
> >                                   23145 Park Contessa,
> >                             Calabasas, Ca., 91302, USA.
>
>
>
>