Theos-Talk Archives (April 2000 Message tt00060)

Hello,

Thanks for you e-mail to the list.  Having studied the Secret Doctrine for
some time and then reading THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE by Brian Greene and other
popular books on Cosmology I have noticed that Cosmology is following the
Secret Doctrine Cosmology and this is thrilling.

My field is Medical Theory and I need association with scientists who are
interested in both theosophy and cosmology so I seek such in groups such as
the Society for Scientific Exploration and the Science and Medical Network.
They seem strong in science and open and beginning in esoterics.  You seem
very strong in both, which seems rare.  I read Bilimori's Book on  science
and the theosophical view and I liked it. It did not have the depth that I
seem to see in your materials.   Thanks.

At the last Society of Scientific Exploration Hal Puthoff gave a little
lecture on the need for scientists to respect and return to the subjective
arts of numerology, astrology, alchemy, etc, (Newton's other side) and he
was pleasantly and respectfully received.  For this openness to hold the
Society needs people like you with a strong background in science and
theosophy to assert the rational basis of theosophy and it's shinning
importance to Western Science and Art and Philosophy at this moment in our
culture.

I plan to re-read your statement and save it.

Oh! Please see David Pearce's webpage on the Zero Hypotheis.  This is my
favorite space as it seems to jive with the secret doctrine.  I've studied
in this space for years.  He does not seem to be familiar with the Secret
Doctrine and did not return my e-mail to him.


Sincerely,
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: LeonMaurer@aol.com <LeonMaurer@aol.com>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>; study@blavatsky.net
<study@blavatsky.net>
Cc: basic@blavatsky.net <basic@blavatsky.net>
Date: Monday, April 17, 2000 3:05 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: New Website on the Early History of the
Theosophical Society


>
>In a message dated 04/16/00 3:00:02 AM, ringding@blinx.de writes:
>
>>O no, not again that idiotic pseudo-scientific and pseudo-
>>theosophical fairy tale book.
>>
>>If the University of Vienna calls on their web-site this really
>>an "scientific" book we first have to talk about what is Science.
>>
>>Frank
>
>Oh no, not again... Another idiotic prejudgement based on nothing more than
>rumors -- that attempt to denigrate theosophy without any knowledge of what
>it really teaches.  Shades of the 1890s British Psychical Society, and the
>other "Luddites" prior to that time -- and afterwards.
>
>The teachings of theosophy have to be taken on their own thoroughly
>understood merits...  And, no research (valid or not) by historical
scholars,
>attempting to prove or disprove the truth or falsity of HPB's claims about
>her association with "Masters of Wisdom" has any value in that respect.
>
>Perhaps you ought to read the Mission Statement as well as the history of
the
>University of Vienna before doubting its authority as one of the foremost
>world class centers of scientific teachings and religious philosophies.
See:
>< http://www.univie.ac.at/unileitbildengl.html >  and
>< http://www.univie.ac.at/Ausseninstitut/unigb1.htm >
>
>So, before taking such a no-nothing, prejudicial attitude, If you doubt the
>scientific validity of the fundamental teachings of theosophy as presented
in
>the Secret Doctrine, you (and other skeptics and doubting Thomas's) would
be
>wise to first check out the web site at:
><http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html>
>-- and find out what Einstein scientifically "intuited" from the teachings
in
>those volumes. Even Einstein was considered a fraud and a fantasizer by
>classical scientists when he first came up with his special theory of
>relativity and the unproven (until the late 30's) E=mc^2 in 1905.
>
>Then, you might also read (actually, study and consider) the SD -- as a
>physics textbook (as Einstein did) -- which presages, and reveals the
>fundamental basis of ALL *proven* modern scientific theories of physics
>(relativity, photoelectricity, quantum, and quark theories) PLUS the recent
>postmodern cosmological physics (Superstring, Membrane, and Zero point
energy
>[ZPE] theories).  All of which cyclically (not psychically) rests on the
>"Fundamental Principles" along with the "Laya point" of HPB, or the
>scientific "zero point instant" postulated by modern and post modern
science.
> Then, perhaps, we all might have some respect for your (and other
>denigrating "pundits" who, obliquely, discredit the teachers to disqualify
>the teachings) *well considered* and unbiased opinions about the
theosophical
>scientific teachings, themselves. (*–-* = italics)  You might also read my
>ABC paper and associated diagrams (web sites below) that postulates a new
>scientific paradigm of holographic coenergetic fields that correlates
>theosophy with modern string and zero-point energy theories (recently
proven
>to exist by the Casimir Effect as well as the split photon "action at a
>distance" entanglement experiments at CERN)). After such study, you might
be
>more qualified to make valid judgments based on acquired knowledge, rather
>than ignorance that rests on questionable historical evidence (food for
>ignorant skeptics) regarding the personalities of the "founders" and their
>associates.
>
>The project noted below could possibly be a worthwhile endeavor to clarify
>the history of theosophy -- provided it refers back to its origination in
>ancient Greece under the auspices of the Neo Platonists, Ammonius Saccus,
>Porphyry and Plotinus. (See the *Key to Theosophy* by HPB).  And, provided
it
>rests on a serious study of their teachings as later correlated with the
>*Book of Dzyan* by H. P.  Blavatsky in her seminal book, *The Secret
Doctrine
>- The Synthesis of  Science, Religion and Philosophy*.  This book and it's
>teachings should be the only basis upon which to judge the truth or
falsehood
>of the scientific basis of theosophy... Not, on whether or not the so
called
>"Masters" were pseudonymous personalities -- for which there is no valid
hard
>evidence, either pro or con.  Also, HPB's personality and her unproved, so
>called "frauds," based on questionable historical research, should have no
>relevance whatsoever to the scientific validity of the teachings presented
in
>the Secret Doctrine, or in her other occult writings -- which must either
>stand or fall on their own logic and reasonableness, as well as on (HPB's
>predicted) modern scientific corroboration.  In any case, HPB cannot be
>blamed for her possible dissemblinng to avoid violating certain oaths of
>secrecy regarding the esoteric occult imformation transmitted to her by the
>Masters (who might also have required a certain degree of anonymity).  In
>addition, why would HPB have intentionally blinded certain dangerous occult
>teachings in the SD by leaving them to be "dug out" by her more intuitive
>students with a level of intelligence. ethics and scientific/mathematical
>knowledge close to that of Einstein?
>
>>> There is a call for papers for a new website on the early
>>> history of the T.S. and the Masters. There will be
>>> monthly interviews and it starts today with K. Paul Johnson.
>>>
>>> The website is titled:
>>>
>>> HISTORY OF THEOSOPHY
>>> http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a7502210/
>>>
>>> "These Webpages are to bring together academic and
>>> semi academic research related to the early history of the
>>> Theosophical Society, its surroundings and legacy."
>
>Without reference to the above mentioned historical review, but with
>reference to modern and post modern science, I hopefully await some
>intelligent discussions in these theosophical forums related to the
>fundamental scientific principles that underlies all evolution, as well as
>the scientific relationships between spirit, mind and matter -- as
presented
>in the SD and other writings of HPB and her (pseudonymous or not) Masters
KH
>and M -- and supplemented by other corroborative writings of William Q.
>Judge, under their direct tutelage.  How else can the principles and ethics
>of theosophy, and the reasonableness of karma and reincarnation, be
>disseminated to and understood by ordinary people in "the language of THIS
>age"?  Anything else is just worthless gossip and babbling -- signifying
>nothing -- except to philologists and historians -- whom all true
>theosophists can take with a "grain of salt."
>
>LHM
>leonmaurer@aol.com
>http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
>http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
>
>"To prejudge without serious study and thought is to be blind to the truth
or
>falsity of any scientific, philosophical or religious doctrine" -- Thomas
>Aquinas
>
>-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
>Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
>teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
>"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.