Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00169)

Thursday, August 16, 2001


Re: Faking -- Does it not retard all progress? Who can
we trust ?


Dear Ramprakash:


As far as personal dishonesty of Scientists -- they are like most
people are. They are COMPETITIVE and in order to survive in
their world of proof and tenure they have to demonstrate that
their employer (college or university or commercial enterprise)
has a progressive investigative and valuable investment in
continuing their employment. Not all are like that, as there is
mixed with this necessity, a wide streak of the desire to truly
teach. How many are given true independence? How many bow to
the frown of a superior who has views that carry weight in the
"payroll" or the "academic recognition" departments?

However even the desire to teach is monitored by their peers and
if they are found to deviate from "accepted norms" they are given
a hard time, and so we see emerging aspects or restraint in the
areas of "scientific incredulity," then, "scientific ostracism,"
and finally loss of employment (unless, like the very independent
and most progressive, they have secured an imminence that cannot
be easily assailed).

It is the same with "Orientalists." In fact all scholasticism is
riddled with the fear of being fired from a job support
situation. These words are most general and do not include
everyone at all. But having worked for a scientific publishing
house for quite some years I encountered this at almost every
level and in most categories of research and teaching. There was
a concerted effort to preserve the "status quo ante" and support
even erroneous views generated by Scientists who had achieved the
eminence of "Authority in their Field."

Now recently there have been published several books that looked
at the problem of archaeology. The first: FORBIDDEN ARCHAEOLOGY
revealed numerous cases where anomalous facts were suppressed and
not considered useful to discuss when teaching the theory of
archaeology and geological locations of fossils and relicts
especially when dating them.

This book was followed by another in which the effect of
publishing the first was revealed in terms of the letters and
comments that followed it publishing -- also the lack of response
in certain cases -- which was significant.

The study of the antiquity of the Sphinx and the location of
various temples and pyramids in Egypt -- arranged in a star-p-map
formation on the soil of the Delta, etc. was written up by John
Anthony West and others. It upsets the chronology of Egyptology
bust as in the early 1940's Emmanuel Velikovsky did with his
books.

The findings of evidence of water erosion on and around the
Sphinx has pitted the Egyptologists' chronologies against the
Geologists and their carefully established touchstones of dating.
They trace the erosion to rain over many years and refer to a
change in climate that occurred roughly 13,000 years ago ( a date
coincident with the sinking of the last major island of Atlantis
in roughly 9,800 BC. [ SECRET DOCTRINE II 124, 765 ] )

Earlier than the author Emmanuel Velikovsky we had the
challenging books by Charles FORT [ LO, The Book of the Damned
(facts), etc...].

ISIS UNVEILED and The SECRET DOCTRINE are of course the most
challenging of all.
But not everyone like Einstein is ready to put a copy of The
SECRET DOCTRINE on his desk and prove by his notes in it, that he
had actively consulted and used it. His book now lies in the
archives at the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY in Adyar, I am given to
understand that it was taken there by his relatives many years
ago.

If and when any one gives serious and critical reading of those 2
books by H.P.Blavatsky we will find that there will be an
improvement -- as science will be found to be eternally existent,
and the additions that any one makes to its records will be
clearly visible as true or false.

But this is also a general proposition, as our true worth
becomes, as we choose it, a matter of our personal Karma and of
the imperishable akasic record that trails us all, and which the
Monad sees at will.

Best wishes as always,
Dallas

=========================


-----Original Message-----
From: Ramprakash [mailto:ult_blr@vsnl.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 3:24 AM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] Re: Survival of the Fakest - part III

Reed,

The question is why scientists generally are so dishonest as
demonstrated by the author you are quoting. H.P.B. showed that
except for
very few honest Truth loving scientists like de Quatrefages etc.,
the
mainstream official scientists as a body were not honest. H.P.B.
identifies
the reason why they were and still are biased, and even go the
extent of
misrepresenting facts and draw impossible conclusions.

"However, the scientists in their anti-clerical enthusiasm
and despair
of any alternative theory to Darwinism, except that of 'special
creation,'
are unconsciously insincere in 'forcing' a hypothesis the
elasticity of which
is inadequate, and which resents the severe strain to which it is
now
subjected " (S.D. II 645)

Why should they despair when Theosophy has enlarged the
theory and scope
of Darwinism, accounted for all the missing links, and solved all
the
puzzles of origin and evolution of life ?

CUT