Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00155)

--- brianmuehlbach <brianmuehlbach@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The question is also why 'The Secret Doctrine",
> that rather appears to 
> be docterred together by normal humans, would be
> more "right" about 
> the "spiritual world" then lets say the book of
> Oahspe, the Urantia book, 
> and others ?
> 
> 
> Brian



Does this mean that you are on the Oahspe and Urantia
discussion groups showing them the ills of their ways?
If not then you have just answered your own question.
If so then do you go by the name of Brian or Brigitte?





> 
> --- In theos-talk@y..., Mic Forster
> <micforster@y...> wrote:
> > > Oke but then what about the evolutionary claims
> in
> > > The Secret Doctrine 
> > > that is claimed by Blavatsky and other
> Theosophists
> > > to be all "scientific" 
> > > and all "facts of nature" ?
> > > 
> 
> > > Brian
> > 
> > 
> > Dear bri,
> > 
> > You can imagine this little Russian woman
> traversing
> > the back parts of Asia coming across all sorts of
> > different people and ideas. She arrives in Tibet
> > amongst these Adepts who show her all sorts of
> > esoteric tricks and teach her profound wisdom. It
> is
> > then her duty to forward this wisdom, as best she
> can,
> > to the people of the West.
> > 
> > Perhaps it would be best to draw an analogy here.
> > Aldous Huxley, in his experiments with mescalin,
> was,
> > in a similar sense, traversing the back parts of
> his
> > mind which had been unexplored by the West. IN his
> > explorations he discovered many things and came
> across
> > profound wisdom, which he was compelled to share
> with
> > others as best as he could. So in his essay,
> "Heaven
> > and Hell", he draws an analogy with the marsupials
> of
> > Australia and how strange they first appeared to
> > science. These strange and endearing creatures
> were
> > always on the planet although we never knew they
> > existed because we never explored that part of the
> > planet. Similarly with parts of the mind which
> > mescalin allows one to explore. 
> > 
> > Now both Blavatsky and Huxley needed to and wanted
> to
> > share their experiences with the greater world.
> How
> > can you explain to a people a concept that they
> have
> > absolutely no capacity of grasping? In response to
> a
> > question as to why God didn't tell Moses about
> DNA, a
> > lecturer at my university replied that how could
> God
> > explain the concept of DNA to those people? They
> had
> > no means to grasp the concept. So Blavatsky needed
> to
> > draw analogies with concepts that were already in
> > existence as did Huxley. Unfortunately, the
> concepts
> > Blavatsky had to draw upon were coarse,
> incoherent,
> > incomplete and largely misunderstood by the
> masses.
> > Remember, the world was still trying to come to
> terms
> > with Darwinism at the time the SD was published.
> If
> > they were struggling with that concept how were
> they
> > ever going to understand concepts put forward in
> the
> > SD. 
> > 
> > Given the limitations we shouldn't view a piece of
> > work such as the SD as set in stone. Some of the
> ideas
> > are fluid and perhaps need rewording so as they
> are
> > compatible with contemporary fashion, knowledge
> and
> > concepts of the universe. Just as we shouldn't
> accept
> > the SD as dogma we shouldn't exclude outright
> either.
> > This would be a great travesty, criminal in a
> sense.
> > You shouldn't read the SD with the idea that it is
> all
> > a load of bullshit and with the intention that you
> are
> > going to attack every concept in it. Yes it is
> alright
> > to question but you have to ask yourself, why am I
> > questioning this? Am I being antagonist or am I
> being
> > curious? Will my question lead to a constructive
> > critique which would enable me to understand the
> world
> > I live in better? Or will my question lead to a
> bunch
> > of people being pissed off with me and lose all
> > respect? 
> > 
> > mic
> > PS. Being a new-comer to this list you might not
> have
> > realised this (although the impression is you
> already
> > know - you must have read the archives before
> signing
> > up) but we had an antagonist on the list a while
> back
> > going by the name of "Brigitte Muehlegger" who
> has,
> > sorry had, a remarkably similar style of posting
> to
> > yours. So you can see the similarity between your
> > name, Brian Muehlbach, and hers. Are you from
> > Germany? I've heard its nice around this time of
> > year.....
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@y..., Mic Forster
> > > <micforster@y...> wrote:
> > > > Dear bri,
> > > > 
> > > > The issues you bring up below could have been
> > > written
> > > > in any popular science publication, such as
> New
> > > > Scientist. Yes these publications are
> respected
> > > > amongst scientists but does that mean they are
> > > > necessarily right? Recently in Australia there
> > > were
> > > > several court cases that used DNA evidence as
> part
> > > of
> > > > the defence/prosecution. Scientists were
> invited
> > > to
> > > > interpret the results of the DNA tests. In one
> > > > instance the scientist misinterpreted the data
> and
> > > an
> > > > innocent man was jailed. Later, when the
> mistake
> > > was
> > > > proven, the lawyers were asked by the media
> why
> > > they
> > > > did not cross check the evidence with another
> > > > scientist. Their response was that if a
> scientist
> > > > tells you it is true then it must be true. 
> > > > 
> > > > Yes the latest claim is that we all descended
> from
> > > a
> > > > single tribe in Africa that was on the verge
> of
> > > > extinction but miraculously made it through.
> Have
> > > you
> > > > seen the actual results of the tests they
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com