Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00196)

Nice response Bart -- and good for all the other 'skeptics' and theosophy 
bashers who only know how to read the dead letter, make superficial judgments 
based on ignorance, and can't see the forest for the trees in the SD and all 
the rest of Blavatsky's or the Master's writings. 

So far, in my studies, researches, and creative-scientific-engineering work, 
I have never found any contradiction of theosophical truths in any accepted 
scientific theory (although there are plenty of errors in them that have 
nothing to do with their application in certain technical areas). In fact, 
there are innumerable examples of confirmations of the metaphysical concepts 
posited in the SD (vide, recent work in Superstrings/M-branes, morphogenetic 
fields, quantum fields, quantum gravity, zero-point energy, etc.) 

Unfortunately, the "skimmers" and "skeptics" can't get deep enough through 
the blinds and metaphors in the SD, or are not conversant enough in academic 
science, to understand the consistent scientific and fundamentally lawful 
basis of the theosophical metaphysics -- that is just now being, if not 
accepted, at least recognized as a probable basis of universal reality by 
many scientists. Also, most of these skeptics base their judgments on 
materialistically limited scientific theories that even most scientist's will 
admit, don't have to be true, so long as they work in the limited material 
world of physical technology they are applied to. The skeptics don't see that 
even the most advanced quantum physics, that gets us our worldwide Internet 
cell phones, laptop supercomputers, pocket cameras and wrist watch TV's, 
can't even come close to explaining the nature and cause of consciousness -- 
let alone explain how the body-brain-mind connections work, or why a 
fingernail grows at the end of a finger (since there is no code in the genes 
or DNA-RNA that tells a protein it makes where to go) -- etc., etc., etc.

Anyway, I'm glad you took up the cudgel, since arguing with the likes of 
Brian nee Bri (and maybe Frank:-) in between beating the chops of legitimate 
scientists on the Consciousness Study and Brain-Mind forums, is quite 
wearying. In fact, I only see their comments these days by reading quotes in 
the responses of certain clear minded people I recognize on the theosophical 
forums -- whose letters I always read. I'm afraid if I started reading their 
letters again, and would be tempted to answer, I would lose all the academic 
politeness that I try to maintain when corresponding with reasonable 
thinkers.:-) 

Best regards,

Leon


In a message dated 08/21/02 7:27:06 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>brianmuehlbach wrote:
>> Oke, but then what is left over you can read in any of hundreds of other
>> new age metaphysical book 
>
> Virtually all of which are based, one way or other, off the Secret
>Doctrine and other writings by Blavatsky. Should we also read from
>Blavatsky's sources? Sounds like a good idea, to me.
>
>> that doesn't have the errors like talk about
>> root races Lemuria or Atlantis as in the SD.
>
> Are these errors of writing or errors of interpretation? Were the terms
>"Atlantis" and "Lemuria" based on previous (certainly not later)
>writings on the subject, or were they mainly convenient labels? The
>Mahatma Letters certainly point out that "root races" was a convenient
>label.
>
>> Also these other New metaphysical books are admit tingly written by
>> regular people and since they contain few if none of the errors that you
>> all seem to admit now, the SD is full of. 
>
> I find that far too many New Age books also use arbitrary labels, often
>taken from Theosophical concepts but without understanding of what these
>terms mean (such as "vibrations", "will", "auras", just to name a few).
>
>
>> So why even assume the SD came from Mahatmas if there is noting in 
>> the SD to show that this is so ? 
>
> Why does it matter? Certainly, the Mahatmas, in the Mahatma Letters,
>show themselves to be somewhat more advanced than Blavatsky (which is
>pretty good evidence that Blavatsky was not the author of those
>letters), but even they say they aren't infallible. 
>
>> So why not stop lying about this, or quote the evidence from the SD
>> that would proof or at least indicate otherwise ?
>
> We're not lying about it. The Secret Doctrine is a massive work. You
>found a few paragraphs which seem to contradict current knowledge. What
>about the huge body which has been confirmed by later knowledge? What
>about the way current knowledge enables us to better understand what
>Blavatsky was talking about?
>
> Bart Lidofsky
>