Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00236)

This entire argument makes no sense, since Brian keeps on confusing theology 
with theosophy. One being the teachings of a particular religion's dogma -- 
with "theo" representing a particular revelatory "God" figure, and the other 
being the philosophical and scientific study of the fundamental nature of the 
universe -- with "theo" representing the Divine (because ineffable) force of 
pure consciousness and wisdom underlying all the constructions and phenomena 
of matter, mind, memory, and will. Thus, theosophical metaphysics is not a 
"belief" system -- but a thoughtful, logical, and thus, scientific conclusion 
based on both non-contradictory subjective and objective evidence gathered 
over extremely long periods of time. Modern science, that is not even two 
centuries old, and is riddled with mistakes and unanswered questions.

Since theosophy rests on logically unassailable fundamental principles, it's 
conclusions or theoretical deductions can be purely "scientific" in the sense 
that they are just as rhealogically, numerologically, geologically, 
topologically, and mathematically consistent, as the abstract mathematics 
that conventional reductive scientists use to claim a theory is 
scientifically valid -- long before (in most cases) experimental or 
observational evidence can prove even its partial validity. (Vide: 
Einstein's theory of relativity, where a later proved twisting or faking of a 
mathematical constant showed it was wrong, after many years acceptance as a 
valid scientific truth because of some questionable observational evidence 
that it might be partially true.) Ref; The constant waffling of science back 
and forth over the belief in "action at a distance" or "quantum 
entanglement," and the existence of an "Aether" or etheric medium for the 
propagation of light. See: 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Einstein%27s+Theory%

22+wrong&btnG=Google+Search
(If you patch this URL, see that no space appears between any letters, signs, 
or numbers.) 

It's interesting that, recently, science has come around to the theosophical 
view that light does propagate through an "etheric" medium (that is now being 
correlated with one of the enfolded, immeasurable, and invisible zero-point 
dimensions of space postulated by Superstring theories). 

The only difference between material science and theosophical science is 
that, contrary to conventional science's reliance only on objective evidence, 
theosophy gives equal weight to both objective and subjective evidence. 
Since, this is simply a difference in degree between the approach of both 
science and theosophy in trying to understand the true nature of reality, 
there is really no difference in their basic scientific aims. 

Therefore, in this sense, theosophy is not a religion at all, but a 
philosophical science studying the transcendental universe of many "coadunate 
but not consubstantial" energy fields existing in both metric and non-metric 
dimensions of fundamental space-time... While, conventional empirical science 
is limited to the study of only the metric dimensions and properties of solid 
mass-energies, their inner quantum particle constituents, the (weak, strong 
and gravitational) forces holding them together, and their radiant EM fields. 
Nowhere does it consider consciousness, mind and memory as being individual 
energy levels or phase separated fields existing in non metric zero-point 
space that is enfolded within the metric space containing the physical 
mass-energy and its radiant energy fields. Nor does it consider that all 
these field separations were fully formed and functional right from the 
beginning of, and even prior to the "big bang." Only the small group of 
cutting edge Superstring/M-brane theorists have begun to recognize these 
facts. 

In this sense, it could be claimed that the belief in materialism or "matter 
only" is the "religion" of science, and the belief that there is more to the 
universe of both consciousness and matter than matter alone is the "religion" 
of theosophy. But to consider theosophy, as taught by HPB, as a revelatory, 
dogmatic, faith based "religion," in the ordinary sense, is entirely wrong -- 
since it is based on a profound ignorance of both theosophical research and 
scientific research -- which really have no disagreements other than their 
fundamental basis of presumptions about universal origin, involution, 
evolution, the nature of transcendental realities, and what is and is not 
considered as valid evidence in making scientific judgments or presenting 
theories -- which, in both schools, have to be logically consistent.

It's obvious that Brian is reaching for straws, applying false analogies, 
mixing apples and oranges, and hand waving in his repetitive attempt to 
denigrate the practical and scientific aspects of theosophy. Who's to know 
from where his antipathy for theosophy stems from? But judging by his 
adamant use of false reasoning, questionable authorities, pejorative 
appellations, prejudicial remarks, false analogies, and other weak propaganda 
techniques to "prove" a point, we might wish to question his motives further. 

Some additional observations below.

In a message dated 08/24/02 4:49:51 AM, brianmuehlbach@yahoo.com writes:

>Bart: Theology is not a religion. It is the study of religion.
>
>Brian: Exactly, and that is where the study of "Theo"sophy belongs. And
>not to "science" of today. Theosophy among others contains the stuf of
>superstitious hermetists of the early Renaisance and middle ages, 300 
>and more years ago. 

Correct. Open minded theosophical science and the dogmatic materialist 
"science of today" do not belong in the same school (Although they might fit 
into a single university that could teach creationism in their theology 
school along with Darwinian evolutionism in their science school -- both of 
which are wrong from a theosophical point of view). However, how are you 
qualified to say that the ancient "hermetists" didn't know more about the 
true nature of the transcendental reality underlying the material reality 
than the modern scientists of today who know next to nothing (other than 
their neural and psychological correlates) about the source, nature or 
mechanisms of consciousness, mind or memory? Knowledge of these things and 
their relationship to our inner psyche and overall health is far more 
important to us than the relationships of conventional scientific knowledge 
to our technological gadgets (some of which are entirely inimical to both our 
mental and physical health, by the way)? 

>As the professor of Mic correctly stated "the distinction between science
>and any particular belief system should become clear. You will note 
>there is no 'Theo' anything in any conventional degree program except 
>Theology."

What has that got to do with the meaning of the "theo" in theosophy which is 
different from its meaning in "theology"? Since theosophy does, to a great 
extent, agree with both Vedic and Buddhists philosophies (which theology, as 
taught in Christian countries, mostly doesn't) there are courses in many 
universities that cover these studies (usually either in their schools of "ph
ilosophy," and sometimes, "theology") -- which, in a broad sense, can also 
include a more or less exoteric theosophy. 

The problem in the West, and with most "skeptics" of metaphysics, is they 
don't know or can't comprehend the difference between exoteric and esoteric 
teachings. Real "esoteric" or scientific metaphysics as taught by theosophy, 
doesn't consider anything as being supernatural or "miraculous" (as most 
revelatory "religious" theologies do). This is because, ALL of nature is 
rooted in one triple-natured thing or "Monad" -- that, in all its 
involution's, evolutions and permutations, both material and nonmaterial, 
strictly follows the same fundamental causal laws of both absolute and 
relative existence. 

On the material plane, all the proven scientific laws that explain the 
physical nature of matter-energy (as well as the unproved laws that explain 
the nonphysical nature of consciousness) are consistent with and follow 
logically from these fundamental laws. Thus, theosophy, which bases all its 
theories strictly on such fundamental laws, has no argument with honest 
science... Only, with the "fakirs" and "fellow traveling" religion bashers 
(and "theo" confusers:-) who twist science, and deny scientific theosophy, to 
suit their own, equally "religious" materialistic beliefs, or preconceptions 
that justify their separateness, selfishness and greed's.

>The problem is that some Theosophists want to pass of there religion as
>something like "science" by making claims like recently Bart who wrote
>there are things about zero point "energy" in the SD. "energy" is a 
>scientific term and and just like the ether of early Renaisance 
>alchemists, the ether mentioned in the SD is not really the same as the
>late 19th century scientific term "ether" that people like Einstein 
>discussed with his mathematcs. Theosophists like to confuse people 
>and make it look like the same. and in that sense then Theosophy 
>becomes pseudo-science. 

This statement comes out of a complete ignorance of the fundamental teachings 
of theosophy in the Secret Doctrine -- and is based solely on a dead letter 
interpretation -- besides a total lack of understanding of both ancient 
alchemy and of modern science. The zero-point energy (ZPE) of current 
science (ref: Superstring/M-brane theory which, incidentally, disagrees with 
both relativity and quantum physics where they disagree with each other) is 
the same zero-point energy spoken of in the secret doctrine, except science 
does not recognize the fundamental difference between the true, static point 
itself and its surrounding "spinergy" (or root of ZPE) -- the fundamental 
duality that separates consciousness from matter. To argue against theosophy 
as a bona fide scientific teaching using opinions and personal beliefs, 
without any understanding of either theosophy or science in their fundamental 
roots, and spitting out trigger words like "pseudo science," with no 
understanding of what that means, is a total waste of time and energy, and 
leads nowhere. (Except, perhaps, to learn something useful from the counter 
arguments of knowledgeable theosophists/scientists.)
>
>Also the term "zero point energy" as such, is a "belief" of Bart (notice
>he also didn't bring any quotes) and certainly has noting to do with what
>science would call "energy."

More baloney. Zero-point energy and "what science would call energy" are 
certainly different -- but what science has just beginning to discover (ref: 
superstringtheory.com) is that zero-point energy, "abstract motion," or 
"spinergy" is the fundamental source and supportive basis of all phenomenal 
or material "energies" observed and studied by science -- just as stated 
repeatedly in the Secret Doctrine. See SD references at:
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html 

It's an indisputable fact that matter is energy and energy is matter, and 
that both stem from and are supported by the "zero-point energy, forces, or 
"spinergy" in the vacuum of primal space between the smallest particles of 
material space. Therefore, there is no separation between the force of 
"spinergy" surrounding the static zero-point center (which is everywhere) and 
the circumference (which is nowhere) of all the matter-energy in the 
universe... Since, the ray of force emanating from the primal zero-point 
winds around and in and out of itself endlessly -- as the triple monadic 
coenergetic fields repeatedly form analogous replicas of themselves while 
winding and spiraling down, one inside the other, like bubbles within bubbles 
within bubbles, etc. -- until they reach our "eleven dimensional" space time 
continuum (3+7+ time). 

This, of course is in perfect accordance with the "scientific" conclusions of 
Superstring/M-brane theory... That, by the way, is only considered 
scientific, because it verifies the combined relativity and quantum laws 
under one new multidimensional geometrical-mathematical paradigm that 
includes them both, and which makes it a "Unified field theory" -- just as 
fundamental theosophical metaphysics teaches. But, then, theosophy goes one 
step further, and ties together that multidimensionality with consciousness, 
mind and memory. Something, which "conventional" science hasn't gotten 
around to considering -- yet. But, give them time, and as HPB predicted, ALL 
scientists will eventually agree with ALL the theosophical metaphysical 
teachings. 

That, incidentally, have been known by ALL real "theosophical thinkers" 
(having "divine wisdom") since the beginning of time. In the meantime, the 
only way to find this out for oneself, is through deep and intensive study 
and introspection into the stillness of the zero-point at the center of our 
conscious being. As the Master said, "Those that can hear will hear, and 
those that can see will see." (And, those that can't, like Brian, won't. :-)

> "the distinction between science and any particular belief system should
>become clear. You will note there is no 'Theo' anything in any 
>conventional degree program except Theology."

Just as there is no wisdom or "sophy," or any love or "philo" in any 
conventional degree program except "philosophy." So, what does that prove? 

Theosophist is simply an ancient Greek compound word that referred to the Neo 
Platonists who studied the true nature of reality and dubbed it divine 
wisdom. However, it was a "complete" philosophical science, since they did 
not ignore consciousness and mind -- as was the case much later when the so 
called "scientific" thinkers separated themselves from philosophy because 
they couldn't find any means of direct observation to find answers in that 
area... And, thus, focussed only on the limited study of what should rightly 
be called "material" or "physical" science... While theosophy, in its overall 
metaphysical teachings, covers BOTH physical and non physical (or "Mental ") 
science -- which we might also see as, a science of BOTH consciousness (or 
Spirit) AND Matter (or energy). Thus, theosophy, besides including what 
science studies, includes everything that it has left out. 

It's unfortunate, that due to this bias, during the past ten years after 
making consciousness study a legitimate academic science, they still haven't 
gotten a handle on consciousness, mind or memory, and how these 
transcendental fields and functions are linked to the brain fields. If they 
continue thinking like Brian, that only material science, flawed as it is, is 
the only reality -- they never will. 

ABC theory, which is based entirely on the metaphysical principles and 
fundamental scientific laws postulated by theosophy, not only agrees with the 
most scientifically advanced unified field theories such as 
Superstrings/M-branes (still to be accepted as definitive by conventional, 
i.e., material based science) but, also, can find no unanswered question of 
current interdisciplinary academic consciousness study that it can't answer 
or resolve. 

LHM
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ABC_bw.html