Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00221)

Wednesday, December 12, 2001

Dear Ian:


You write and say that you “really do want to find a solution.”

I assume that you have visited this Theosophy Study List because you hope
that there may be answers from students of Theosophy which you could compare
with the thesis you seem to have already set up.

I think from what you write not everyone will agree with you in the matter
of interpretation of antiquity.

You have said:

” I read your interesting mail with some delight. Yet again, when confronted
with anything that goes against Theosophical thinking or asked to use
sources other than Theosophy to give your thoughts weight you resort to the
age old argument of "You don't agree so you don’t understand". “

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

DTB I did not say that we or you do not understand one another. But
there are differences to be investigated.

You have put your finger on the fact that there are disagreements. We
present our views and findings, you have your own to compare. Naturally we
will present to you what we know in terms drawn from Theosophy as you have
approached us to find out what THEOSOPHY says.

As to providing you with information from other systems, it will prove
difficult as the fundamental Theosophical approach is that it is a very
ancient system, and most of the world religions, philosophies and old as
well as modern Sciences are derived from it. In The SECRET DOCTRINE you
will find it stated that the doctrines discussed have an antiquity going
back some 18 million years, say the “Masters of Wisdom,” and that exceeds
by a great deal any concept of time that the research done in the past 300
years (I mean since “Orientalism,” more or less, began with the scientists
that accompanied Napoleon 1 to Egypt in the very early 19th century.)

My sources are the writings of Mme. Blavatsky: books and articles, most of
which I have studied. Also to some extent they have been supplemented with
first hand observation and inquiries over the past 35 years when I was in
India and the Orient.

Neither you, nor we (as students of Theosophy), are the final arbiters in
this. We do make comparisons. Some we understand and others we do not.
But, as I understand it, it is facts that we are looking for, as well as
supporting thought. Those who worship at the shrine of TRUTH and FACT are
contemptuous of no source of information, nor of any contemporary or earlier
work done by any one. We seek for traces of similarity, of analogy, or
correspondence. Look through ISIS UNVEILED if you wish to see what is
brought forward for consideration there. On publication it created a
sensation and in a week all copies of the book, were sold. It has been kept
in print since then. Eleven years later The SECRET DOCTRINE was issued and
there you have a review of the Occult history of our Earth’s formation and
the evolution of mankind. In many cases it does not agree with the theories
and hypotheses of modern Orientalism. But that does not make it wrong.

We (as students of Theosophy) take the position that NATURE (or Deity)
already contains everything. All living beings, of whatever kind are
supported by the united processes of laws that Nature has already in place.
[ Chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, medicine, sociology,
linguistics, politics, history, etc… -- are as old as thinking man -- a
period said to comprise at least 18 million years. [ S D I p. 150
footnote ] All the discoveries of Science are simply the revealing and
verifying of what is already there laid down and operating under Nature’s
control and supervision. There is no “novelty.” Only DISCOVERY, and
verification of facts observed.

It has been my experience that knowledge is gradually built up. It is NOT
built on the basis that any one knows best, or knows everything, and
therefore challenging words like “lies,” “misunderstandings,” “charlatan,”
“fraud,” etc. are not used, unless there is verified evidence, at FIRSTHAND
of their existence. I wonder if you have read Sylvia Cranston’s biography
of H.P.B. as it answers seriously and with facts all the innuendos cast at
this remarkable Personage.

Their use in inquiry and conversation implies to me, that certain judgments
have been made. Permit me to question their validity. If you have read the
literature of Theosophy, then, in a broad-mind, free capacity to embrace
information, let me ask what are your specific objections to statements made
there. Inquiry starts with dialog. But if there is a pre-judged position
assumed by either party, at that point inquiry and exchange ceases.

As to yourself, if permitted, let me ask, from what you have written, have
read ISIS UNVEILED or The SECRET DOCTRINE, and the biography of H P B ? I
am interested in the opinions you have to offer, and their basis.

I (as an editor of Scientific material, working with the Van Nostrand
Publishers) have had the benefit of a wide acquaintance with Science and
Academic research in general, and have found that the most valuable
attitudes among such wonderful and dedicated people can be classed as
humility, diligence, and unprejudiced research -- wide research, and a good
knowledge of all adjacent disciplines. Those who are at the forefront of
discovery in Science, Orientalism, and Philosophy ask probing questions and
do not make pronouncements.

Personally, what I have found is that Theosophy fills gaps that Science is
still trying to fill, and for which (and it is a lack of specific knowledge)
it has erected views of possible and plausible causes and procedures in
history, and calls them invariably: theories and hypotheses -- which
frequently change, as the history of Science reveals, when new evidence
arises.

It would appear to me, that you may have adopted some conclusions which
today are acceptable in your “Discipline.” And it also seems to me that you
are seeking to verify and prove your pre-judged position. To me, this would
not be strict scientific research.

You have obviously made a unique study -- leading to specialization. You
have therefore assumed that the solutions (theories and hypotheses) accepted
by your “authorities” and adopted by you are correct. But are you not in
the process of proving them.

In contrast to you, I prefer to call myself a “generalist.” I listen to all
sides and take notes and reserve assuming any position until it is clear we
are all considering such facts and reports as are available. I try to cover
a number of inter-relating disciplines since it is evident that Nature has
interlocking and cohesive systems in place. For example, on careful
examination I believe we might say: Nature (taken as a whole) appears to be
infinitely sensitive and responsive to the needs of the individual
components of its many systems. One can see order and precision in the
motions, and influence surrounding an atom, a crystal, an element or a
chemical compound, a plant, an animal, a man, a mathematical equation, or a
chemical, physical or astronomical problem -- or take the remarkable
advance in astro-physics and look at a Solar System and a large number of
interacting Galaxies.

Law and Laws are found to rule everywhere. Science depends on the honesty
and accuracy of Nature in all its works near and far. Science makes its
declarations based on the facts it discovers. It chooses NATURE as the
final authority. It says that any discovery can be replicated and
demonstrated by any one else. It is the universality of facts that is
valuable, and not the individual opinions of the discoverers.

In the orient, the oldest texts were transmitted verbally with great control
over sound and inflection because (and I have tapes that demonstrate this)
concealed in the sound wee some of the “codes” whereby secret knowledgewas
transmitted. The superficial sounds in ancient verses were made to present
a coherency that served as a kind of “blind” which diverted and deflected
the attention of a newcomer or a non-initiate.

I presented you with certain euphonic similarities which, studied in terms
of actual linguistic distribution (present and past) are said to have a
relationship -- but your study and research says that is not so. It remains
to find out what is correct.

Again, neither of us are either right or wrong, but we seek to find out
where the greater accuracy is. Your research and mine may overlap in
places, but they are not invariably coincident, and certainly neither of us
can assume that their position and our particular observations are
necessarily final, and the statements made by the other are idiotic. And as
I understand it, in a life time of dealing with experts in all departments
of Scientific research, prejudice is usually careless of the findings of
other disciplines, unless the researcher has a rare and inquisitive nature
and is determined to find the TRUTH by any and every means, and accept no
conclusions unless they are proven to general satisfaction. We accept
nothing and reject nothing. The future will teach this.

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


IAN
As you say, I think that means we can't take our conversation much further,
which is a shame, because it does nothing to help the cause of Theosophy in
the eyes of others here - it simply shows that you're blinkered and
determined to believe what HPB says without being at all objective. How can
Theosophy move forward when you can't even begin to defend any of its basic
principals? How can anyone take you or it seriously when all you do is
constantly trot out the 'party line'?

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


DTB First Theosophy does not have to be moved “forward.” It is already
descriptive of all observable phenomena, as it deals with and reports on
NATURE and her laws and history. It has always done this and reports facts
observed in the past and ascribes causes which our modern Science is yet to
uncover.

Our eyes embrace everything in Nature because nature makes it available to
those who are constructively its servants. We look for the ethical and
moral effect of any laws or action which we might bring about when using
Nature’s laws. Science has yet to take the clue and work with that aspect
of knowledge.


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

IAN
It doesn't matter a damn really if Theosophy is 'real' or not. It does a
fine job of bringing people together and doing good works. What I do object
to is the indefensible idea that it is based in its entirety on ancient
books (written we are told by Atlanteans). If it were just there as a means
to do


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

DTB I recognize that the antiquity of information held by Theosophy is a
surprise to most scientists. They are also surprised to learn that in India
there are thousands of manuscripts other than the Vedas and the Upanishads,
that deal with all aspects of science, mechanism, chemistry, physics,
biology, mathematics, medicine, psychology, etc.. and those are under the
care of the hereditary families of Brahmins, who guard them, and are not at
all interested in letting the modern Academicians know anything about them.

In The SECRET DOCTRINE you will find that WISDOM is not solely derived from
the Atlanteans, but that there have been races older and wiser than they.
Those claims mean nothing. In the “here and how” what are we doing ? what
are we learning? what are we verifying?

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

In conclusion:

Dear Ian, we all have a lot to learn and are learning new things every day.
There are no finalities, but only an ever focused sharpening of
understanding. I suggest that you read something of what Mme. Blavatsky
wrote, and see if it makes (over all) sense.

best wishes,

Dallas TenBroeck









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]