Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00018)

In a message dated 11/28/98 6:56:20 PM, Jerry wrote:

>Dallas, I would have been very surprised if you had ignored
>my attack on Judge. However, neither the world nor its living
>beings are deterministic (mechanical or predictable or even
>fully understandable). I am sorry that this fact is so objectionable
>to you

What basis do you have of such a "fact"--other than your own opinion?  Or, are
you just a provocateur recruited by the opposition?  If so, you better do some
real research and get your facts straight.

Human (or the human governed "world's") "unpredictability" has very little to
do with the Universal Law (which, by its very fundamental nature is,
therefore, "deterministic". . . But, only to the extent that "lawful" natural
processes are allowed to go about their inherent harmonious activities without
disruption by ignorant and disharmonious humans)--because humans can make
wrong choices and thereby disrupt the most careful planning of others, as well
as themselves.  Between that "unpredictability" and the "indeterminacy" of
science (and the influence of consciousness over matter, as theosophy
postulates) is a gap of understanding much like comparing apples to oranges,
electrons to people, the universe to the "world", or not being able to see the
forest for the trees (or vice versa).  Judging by your opinionated,
contradictory arguments, and our responses, I'm surprised that you haven't GOT
IT yet--that you are entirely wrong in everything you think you know about
theosophy, as well as your contrary "blind beliefs".

>(most physicists objected to it as well, until they
>demonstrated it over and over again).

Really?  How many physicists?  Who are they?  What demonstrations?

>>Dear Jerry:
>>Nature contains all and if you wish to call it deterministic,
>>then so it is.  That, however does not prevent the expression of
>>your free-willed opinion or of those of anyone else.

>Of course you are welcome to your opinion. But is is hard for
>me to see how modern Theosophy will ever hope to combine
>its teachings with science when the most "proven" of scientific
>facts (that there are basic and fundamental limits to our
>knowledge) is rejected. In order to do so, we Theosophists

I don't see you as being a "one of (us) theosophists", since you seem to
disagree with everything theosophy has to say.  If you would admit that your
"beliefs" were opinions, rather than ironclad and irrefutable truths, you
would be welcome to them, too.

What "proven" scientific facts are you referring to?

Besides, what makes you think there is such a thing as "modern theosophy".
Theosophy hasn't changed since the Book of Dzyan was written more than 8,000
years ago, (and since the "Wise Men" we call Masters and Adepts verified it
for at least the next 5,000).   In fact, "modern theosophy was taught by the
ancient Greek philosopher hierophants long before Buddha came on the scene to
clarify its relationship to personal enlightenment ONLY.  He never once denied
its scientific teachings, nor did he confirm them (as the Vedas he knew so
well did)--since, he was not interested in anything but teaching the "eight
fold path to emacipation from suffering" for each individual.  However, not
one statement made by Buddha indicates that he didn't know and follow all the
fundamental principles of theosophy, and their derivative truths.  (No need
for quotes here, since, I for one refuse to chew your cud for you.  Go to the
S.D  and find out for yourself what you don't know about theosophy, or the
Buddha, for that matter.)

>have to accept these limitations, call them ring-pass-nots,
>and move on.

What limitations?  To where?  To your distorted version of what you think is
theosophy, perhaps--based on nothing but hot air and exoteric gobbledy gook?
Do you know what the theosophically scientific words, "ring-pass-nots" refer
to?  Apparently not.  Since, you only drop such words inappropriately to make
us think that you have a "profound"(?) knowledge of theosophy.  Who do you
think you are kidding?.

>>Personally I do not see anything "deterministic" in this as it is
>>the expression, logically of the universal law of progress that
>>rules from Kalpa to Kalpa and beyond.

>Your own words are so entirely contradictory here that I
>can only surmise that you don't understand what determinism
>>means.

Are you speaking for yourself again?  Earlier, you said the universe is not
deterministic but indeterminate.  Now, you seem to reverse yourself and argue
that Dallas is wrong and that the universe is governed by deterministic laws.
Make up your mind, man.  A good opponent in any argument should at least be
consistent.  But, what is there to argue about?  (Unless you have some
ulterior motive for proving theosophy wrong.)  All that "true" theosophists
(definition: "all those in the true service of humanity) should be trying to
do is understand and apply it.  But, judging by your somewhat foolish attempts
to rip it apart, and denigrate its teachers, you're, apparently, not one of
them.

>The "ruling" of "universal" laws is relative and temporary
>and non-linear and we as human beings will never be able to
>fully understand them.

Who says?  (Here's another 'foot in mouth" ignorant remark with no facts to
back it up).  And, what makes you so sure?  Or is this another of your twisted
statements about something you seem to know little about?  (And probably never
will--considering the narrowness of a mind that seems to spew out nothing but
opinionated denial, no matter what any "honest" and searching theosophist
thinks or says.)

That statement is similar to what almost everyone was saying about space and
time before Einstein came along and made them look like the fools you now are
now emulating (with every word you say).  How can Universal Law, originating
in the abstract eternal motion of the Absolute (and expressed, upon its
manifestation, in the first logos) be temporary?  Wouldn't that Law be the
root of all the laws of motion, time and space that follow?  All you seem to
be able to do (or say) is to pile one unfounded and meanigless statement on
top of another.  Are you really intentionally "trying" to confuse all the new
students of theosophy who might be listening to these conversations?  What is
it about the teachings of theosophy that frighten you (or your mentors) so
much--that you have to indescriminatively, tear down, everything it
postulates, and indescriminativly deny anything anyone says about it--whether
they may be right or wrong?

>> Our experience is only the
>>latest attempt to verify and add our observations to the unending
>>record of

>The idea that we can just keep adding on bits of knowledge
>until we finally have complete and full knowledge is what is
>called determinism, and modern science has absolutely
>killed it as a valid theorem or hypothesis.  We are not
>deterministic. Our observations influence what we observe.

That is not determinism.  What dictionary are you using?  What "modern
science" have you been studying?  That statement with its double twist of "two
wrongs making a right" is the most outlandishly contrived falsity you have
presented so far.  Theosophy has been saying all along that ultimate truth
will never be arrived at by examining the particulars--but that once the
fundamental principle of cyclic law is accepted as being the only logical
basis for the evolution of an inherently scientifically (and not mystically or
magically) determined Universe, all particularities will be simply and easily
derived or deduced.

Theosophists are not adding bits and pieces to the original teaching, since
there are no bits and pieces to add.  All they are doing, is comparing their
individual observations and conclusions, and sincerely trying to arrive at a
mutual understanding of the true nature of reality "so as to arrive at a
common Self realization and "to be better able to help and teach others".
Judging by your negative responses, I can't see as how you are in any position
to help in these matters

FYI, quantum indeterminacy is only noticed at the smallest particle interface
of the material (EM) field with the largest particles of the consciousness
(AM) field (because of the influence of chaotic or indeterminate field
patterns necessarily induced at that interface).  And that "fact" (of the
"influence" of our observations, at that level, on the "determinism" of either
the momenta or position of a photon or electron) constitutes almost an obvious
proof(?) that applied concentrated "consciousness", (or willfully concentrated
mental thought imagery), can influence matter--as theosophy has postulated all
along.  If you want to get a better idea of how these teachings interface with
and lead to the "next leap" of science and Technology, soon to come, check
out: <A HREF="http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/";>
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/</A>

>>I think that all those subjects were known to the Adepts and to
>>Judge and are not "new" because they have dawned on our
>>scientific and philosophical world recently,

>Well, this is your belief, and you are welcome to it. If you can
>find some good quotes to back it up, I will read them. But you
>won't, because everyone in those days thought that the
>world was deterministic. Only mystics knew the truth and
>not all Adepts were mystics, and I can't see from reading Judge
>that he was one either. He writings all imply determinism
>and linearity and the false idea that all we need is more data.
>HPB on the other hand was a bit of a mystic, and she could
>well have known.

Wow...  That's another bit of twisted logic and opinionated pre-conceived
nonsense.
HPB never spoke of the Universe being mystical--since her statement of the
fundamental truths (and everything that follows in the S.D.) demonstrates that
the Universe is governed purely by LAWFUL ACTION (based on the fundamental Law
of cycles).  She also, specifically denied that any of her (and other
Adepts--including those of the mythical Jesus) so called, 'miracles", were
based on anything more than a profound knowledge of the workings of the
fundamental laws of nature.   Where do you get all your false information?
How do you know what "everyone" thought "in those days"?  Where are your
"quotes" to back up what you say about that.  (Or, do you have some mystical
"mind reading knowledge that we don't know about?:-)

>>If you consider the vastness of time and the fact that Theosophy
>>is a record of the study of thousands of Adepts and their
>>disciples over millions of years, our recent discoveries in the
>>past 125 years are only a small scratch on the immensity of time.

>This is rather like an osctrich who prefers to hide in the sand
>until unpleasant disturbances blow over. You are welcome to
>that position, if you like. But 2+2 are four today and forever,
>and so are the equations of relativity, quantum mechanics,
>and chaos. Even the laws of Newton are still valid in a
>relative sense. Newton has not been overturned, but rather
>put into a bigger perpective. This may happen to modern
>physics too, but it won't change the fundamental ideas.

What is your statements about the nature of scientific truth got to do with
the observation that Dallas made--that appears to imply that the Adepts knew
all of that ages ago?  What is he (and other theosophists) supposedly hiding
from?  Or, are you agreeing, finally, that the "fundamental ideas" of
theosophy (which include the immutability* of the Laws of cycles) are true?
That's a switch.  And, more or less a proof of what we have been saying about
your mostly nonsensical and sometimes expediently reversible argumentation all
along.

*The word "immutable" (referring to fundamental cyclic Law) means, in one of
its aspects, changeless--and, thereby, infers that all its derivative laws in
each of its seven fields of action (which, as yet, have not been even
partially explained by science) are also changeless.  And, it follows, that
these laws do, in fact, "determine" the nature of all action on all derivative
planes (or fields) within the Universal field--from spirit to matter.  All
science has done so far, from Newton, to Einstein, to Bohr, to Hiesenberg, to
Hawkings (and beyond) is attempt to explain these laws on the material plane
only.  They have at least 5 more fields to go, and, so far, they haven't even
broken the ice.  So much for the credibility of most "scientists" and
"spiritual materialists" who see the world as far as the indeterminacy of the
quantum "wavicle", and no further.  (Except for the few pioneers who recognize
the existence of the zero-point fields and that consciousness is not an
epiphenomena of the brain.)

LHM.