Re: Theos-World Re: New Website on the Early History of the Theosophical Society
Apr 18, 2000 10:16 AM
by barrett w. culmback
Given your remarks here, you may find this site to be of
Barrett Culmback, who share your interests, since 1967.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:04:29 -0700, you wrote:
>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
>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.
>From: LeonMaurer@aol.com <LeonMaurer@aol.com>
>To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
>Cc: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Date: Monday, April 17, 2000 3:05 PM
>Subject: Theos-World Re: New Website on the Early History of the
>>In a message dated 04/16/00 3:00:02 AM, email@example.com 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.
>>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
>>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
>>University of Vienna before doubting its authority as one of the foremost
>>world class centers of scientific teachings and religious philosophies.
>>< 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
>>the Secret Doctrine, you (and other skeptics and doubting Thomas's) would
>>wise to first check out the web site at:
>>-- and find out what Einstein scientifically "intuited" from the teachings
>>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
>>[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
>> 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
>>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
>>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
>>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
>>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
>>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
>>- 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
>>of the scientific basis of theosophy... Not, on whether or not the so
>>"Masters" were pseudonymous personalities -- for which there is no valid
>>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
>>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
>>>> "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
>>in the SD and other writings of HPB and her (pseudonymous or not) Masters
>>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."
>>"To prejudge without serious study and thought is to be blind to the truth
>>falsity of any scientific, philosophical or religious doctrine" -- Thomas
>>-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- firstname.lastname@example.org
>>Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
>>teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
>>"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
>-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- firstname.lastname@example.org
>Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
>teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
>"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
ICQ#: 63631087. Interested in 'Consciousness'? Go To:
"It is understandable that a child might fear the darkness; less so that an adult would fear the light." Plato
-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- firstname.lastname@example.org
Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application