Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00362)

In a message dated 03/15/02 2:53:12 PM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>Jerry: The Planetary Chain, or Gupta Vidya Model as I call it, is the 
>bedrock of Theosophy. The fact that it is entirely mayavic and a
>"finger pointing to the moon" is ignored by most Theosophists."
>
>Bri.: Yes, Theosophy describes a septenary cosmos as an 
>interdependent whole, yet Theosophists cannot explain then 
>why "occultism" and Theosophy are rejected by modern science , when 
>Theosophy supposed to "encompass" all the sciences.

And, what value as "proof" of anything does that rejection by "modern 
science" have (based on nothing more than their negative, scientifically 
"religious" belief that nothing exists other than what can be physically 
sensed and measured with their "material" instruments)? Unfortunately, for 
those followers of the established scientific dogmas, the new mathematics, 
such as that used by Superstring theorists, is beginning to punch big holes 
in those beliefs -- since zero-point "vacuum" energies in the form of 
"coadunate but not consubstantial" primal energy fields cannot be seen, 
touched or measured physically (although the "Casimir effect" has 
inferentially "proved" their existence -- to the consternation of many 
reductive scientific believers in the classical and most current scientific 
dogmas.

>In the Middle Ages, truth was dogma, acquired by revelation and 
>decided by authority; but as the philosophers of the Enlightenment 
>declared, science is the enemy of dogma precisely because it is not 
>arcane. Admittedly, Pythagoras thought that the ideas of natural 
>philosophy should be kept under wraps, and so, somewhat oddly, did 
>Francis Bacon. But the essence of modern science is to be as explicit
>as possible: "show your working", as they say in maths exams. Science 
>may sometimes be hard, but it is ultimately democratic. Only the 
>initiated can be party to the thoughts of the tribal witch doctor or 
>medireview priest (or of Pythagoras, if he had his way), but the
>ideas of science are laid out for all to inspect.

Yes, but only those members of the 'academic" community with the proper 
credentials are allowed to comment or make tentative judgments about their 
validity -- or be peer reviewed and published in their current "scientific" 
journals (or "bibles"). 

Science "democratic"? What a joke.

Besides all that, the following is just another example of the attempt to 
denigrate theosophy and any scientific description of it by selective 
negative "associations" and "opinionated generalizations" (as Daniel so 
succinctly pointed out).

>A strategy Theosophy often use is a simplistic form of pattern 
>recognisiton. For example Theosophists will claim chemistry 
>demonstrates the indestructibility of matter, and this is the belated 
>scientific insight into the "occult" doctrine that the universe is
>eternal and only temporarily goes into the unmanifested or pralaya state.
>(SD 1:552) 
>Secondly, although the atomic theory of matter was well developed by 
>the late nineteenth century, it had not yet been convincingly
>verified at that time. Many chemists, and a few physicists, still held
>open 
>the possibility that matter might be continuous. Thus, the chemistry of
>the 1880s could not define the "boundaries" that distinguish chemical 
>elements by other means than overt differences in appearance or 
>behavior in various reactions. This is an insight that makes
>chemistry approach the "occult" belief that all matter is ultimately a
>variety of manifestations of a unitary prima materia.(SD 1:546)

Well, isn't it?

>A second argument is based on the strategy of synonymization.Devas 
>and genii are declared to be the same entities that science calls
>forces .(SD 1:478.)
> The chemical terms molecule, atom and particle refer tothe realities 
>that "occultists" name Hosts, Monads and Devas.(SD1:548.)
> The periodic table of Mendeleeff is explained as consisting of seven
>families of elements plus an eighth (that only fits awkwardly into the
>system) is said to correspond to the Hindu allegory of Aditi, the
>Mother or Infinite Space who accepted seven of her sons and rejected 
>the eighth (SD 1:553.)
>
>"There can be no conflict between the occult and so-called exact 
>Science, where the conclusions of the latter are based on a
>substratum of unassailable fact".(SD 1:477.)
>
> The last proviso is important. The correspondence between science
>and occultism is not complete. In fact, science is only now (at the end
>of the nineteenth century approaching the stage at which occultism has
>been for thousands of years. Like other spokespersons of the Esoteric 
>Tradition, Blavatsky constructs a distinction between the bigoted and 
>contradictory beliefs of materialistic scientists and true or real
>science (For the term "true science", see SD 1:514.) which, by 
>definition, is not materialistic.(SD 1:518.)
>
>Blavatskyan Theosophy thus builds on the presupposition, by now 
>familiar, that science is a body of doctrines, and constructs the 
>characteristic dichotomy between two forms of science. (For 
>spiritualized science described as true science, see SID 1:496. )
>
>The split between the two is a historical phenomenon, and Blavatsky 
>blames certain individual thinkers for this split. Bacon was an early 
>culprit due to the materialism of his method, the general tenor of
>his writing and, more specifically, his misunderstanding of spiritual
>evolution.(SD I 481) 
>Descartes was a "worshipper of matter". (IU 1:206.)
>Newton's materialistic mistake was to posit the law of gravity as a 
>primary force rather than an effect of underlying spiritual causes .(
>SD 1:490) 
>Other scientists were "spiritually" inclined, and these are 
>selectively approved of Thus, some of the more speculative passages 
>from Newton's writings are quoted in support of a spiritualized 
>interpretation of gravity.(SD 1:490 .)
> But then, Blavatsky claims, on shaky grounds, that Newton arrived at his
>ideas by reading Boehme.(This claim originated with the English 
>Christian theosopher William Law 1686-176, and remains controversial)
>
>Kepler is admired for his way of combining scientific and esoteric 
>thought.(This claim originated with the English Christian theosopher 
>William Law 1686-1761) and remains controversial) The positive side of
>
>Descartes' work was his belief in magnetic forces and alchemy. (1U 
>1:206.)
>
>However, even the greatest scientists are merely rediscovering
>ancient knowledge, expressed through cryptic symbolism in Indian 
>scriptures and also transmitted by a lineage of Western occultists 
>including Paracelsus and assorted kabbalists and alchemists.

Well, aren't they? 

>Next, theosophical spokespersons such as Alice Bailey and Leadbeater 
>lived in an intermediate age. The quasi-physical language of
>mesmerism was on the wane, its results explainable in secularized 
>terms such as "the subconscious" or "hypnosis".Theosophists still defend
>the existence of paranormal phenomena in the seance rooms of the 
>mesmerists, but only that the scientistic vocabulary of mesmerism had 
>become marginalized. Even an ardent defender of mesmerism such as 
>Leadbeater attempts to explain mesmerism in terms of other forces, 
>more in tune with the science and scientism of his own time. 
>
>"Magnetism", he explains, is in reality a cascade of tiny particles
>poured out from the sun, absorbed by the human body and circulated as 
>a-vital fluid through the nerves much as blood is circulated through 
>arteries and veins. A healthy man radiates some of this fluid, which can
>
>then be absorbed by those who lack it. (Leadbeater Some Glimpses of 
>Occultism, pp. 154 ff.) Whereas Mesmer's own theories are pastiches 
>on the theories of electromagnetism of his time, Leadbeater created a 
>personal synthesis of atomic theory and vitalism to explain the same 
>phenomena, an explanation still common among theosophists today.

What has this discredited Neo-theosophy, have to do with the current concepts 
of theosophical principles and their irrefutable and logical conclusions, 
based on the fundamental teachings of the most ancient wisdom and knowledge 
-- that came long before both partially fallacious, so called "occult" 
science, and equally fallacious "classical" and "modern" science reared their 
mutually contradictory heads? We don't need "selective" pseudo history or 
prejudiced and opinionated assertions to "prove" that. Post modern science, 
of course, with its new paradigms -- close to theosophical metaphysics, by 
the way -- may soon prove to be another story. Let's wait and see -- rather 
than base our judgments on hearsay and unscientific historical guesswork

LHM


>
>