Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00776)

At 01:03 AM 2/25/02 +0000, you wrote:
> It is clear from Randolph and Blavatsky's writings that the central
> Sun is another word for "God" not black holes.
>
> Is the claim it would have anything to do with black holes another
> example of Theosophical pseudo-science ?
> Bri.
If you want to know what the standard theosophical literature says
about the idea of a Central Sun, you can go to the references and
quote what it says.

One passage, for instance, from THE SECRET DOCTRINE, I, 240fn, is:

> This "central sun" of the Occultists, which even Science is
> obliged to accept astronomically, for it cannot deny the presence
> in Sidereal Space of a central body in the milky way, a point
> unseen and mysterious, the ever-hidden centre of attraction of
> our Sun and system -- this "Sun" is viewed differently by the
> Occultists of the East. While the Western and Jewish Kabalists
> (and even some pious modern astronomers) claim that in this sun
> the God-head is specially present—referring to it the volitional
> acts of God -- the Eastern Initiates maintain that, as the
> supra-divine Essence of the Unknown Absolute is equally in every
> domain and place, the "Central Sun" is simply the centre of
> Universal life-Electricity the reservoir within which that divine
> radiance, already differentiated at the beginning of every
> creation, is focussed. Though still in a laya, or neutral
> condition, it is, nevertheless, the one attracting, as also the
> ever-emitting, life Centre.
I'm not sure how "pseudo science" relates to black holes. Unlike
the fundamentalists of traditional religions, like, say, a
conservative Catholic, who might have bitterly fought the idea
that the earth is not flat, a good example of a Theosophist would
be open to freshly rethinking things, considering discoveries of
modern science with an open mind.

There is always a degree of uncertainty where metaphysics attempts
to link up with current science. The science of today is certainly
different now than it was 125 years ago. And it'll be just as
different 125 years from now. So any attempt to comment on or
draw correlations with so-called modern science can only be done
with partial success. A timeless philosophy needs to be continually
reexpressed in order to be understood in changing times, and that
includes what might be said in response to the scientific thinking
of the time.

Do you read articles and news items about modern science? Is
your thinking sufficiently open that it can be changed or reconsidered
in the light of new discoveries? If so, you'd qualify as a
Theosophist too.

-- Eldon