Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00434)

Hey, haven't you read my stuff? 

Isn't it obvious that any "point of view" and "interpretation" can be wrong? 

So, perhaps soon your opinion about the proof of "theosophicl ideas" might 
also be "outdated" ... When Suprstring/M-brane theory completes its 8-fold 
path and links up with ABC theory, resolves the anomalies between classical, 
relativity, and quantum physics, closes the last gap between nothing and 
something, delineates the "ultimate division of time," accepts the "reality" 
of the seven fold theosophical, metaphysical, and psychological 
interpretation of universal truth, and presents a 5-fold Grand Unified Field 
theory of Everything (GUFTE) -- that all scientists will be forced to agree 
was all there, fully synthesized in the original theosophical teachings -- 
hidden "BETWEEN the lines and IN the words" of the SECRET DOCTRINE (1888 
facsimile edition). 

Then, I'm sure you will agree, theosophy will have been "proved" -- to the 
satisfaction of everyone who has "an ear to hear, an eye to see, and a mind 
to understand." ... (This, in spite of the various scientific and historical 
"inaccuracies" of extant sources available to us.) 

(I'm also sure HPB would agree, if she were here.:-)

With hope for a truly "Theosophical World" in the not too distant future...

LHM

In a message dated 02/12/02 8:17:51 PM, gschueler@earthlink.net writes:

><<<Paul Johnson believes that Blavatsky's writings
>contain "tremendous spiritual treasures" along with "a lot of stuff that
>is very dated and reflects the scientific and historical inaccuracies of
>extant sources available to her.">>>
>
>Daniel, I'm with Paul. Some of her writing reflects the accepted Laplacian
>views of her time, and I am sure that she would not write like that today
>(for example, her statements that Theosophical ideas can be "proved" is
>outdated). 
>
>Jerry S.