Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00021)

Brian wrote:
<Michael Cremo's theory is based on the Vedas using Eastern cyclical
thought but its not emantionism?>

<One the other hand emanationism like Plotinus and pseudo-Dyonisus
that develloped "the great Chain of Being" theorie, is based on the Bible.>

<Also the Catholic church is not creationist, but all have a "creation
myth."
including the SD wirth globes and rounds spiritual hierarchies that
particitated, and various pralayas inbetween, hypobereans, Lemurians
and so on.>

<With a major difference to all modern theories of evolution ,that
Theosophy denies man would have derieved from chimps. And
Theosophy does this without any evidence to support this.>

< Like Cremo Theosophy claims man comes from some kind of spirirtual
golden age (from on high) Cremo calls it "devolution" instead of the
modern evolution theory that invariable says man split of from the
monkeys and not the other way around as Theosophy claims.>

Dear Brian,

You've managed to bring up all sorts of irrelevant things without hardly
addressing the issues at all.

First off, I mentioned Cremo not to discuss his theories, but only to point
to the evidence he and Thompson give that indicates how much data modern
anthropology has ignored. After all, you were the one who wanted to talk
about "Theosophy's lack of evidence." Let's stay on the subject.

Second, as Mic Forster just wrote to this list, "Blavatsky needed to find
terms that Western minds knew in order to explain concepts that had
absolutely no analogue in the West." I think it would be valuable for you
to read his most recent posts carefully. I'd be interested to see your
response.

Third, while we are discussing terms, I used the term "creationist" in the
popular sense to mean any system that attempts to explain the existence of
the world as the product of an *extra-cosmic* god, as contrasted with
*scientific* views of evolution. I think Catholicism shares this
characteristic with most Christian faiths. If you want to change the
meaning and say Catholicism is not "creationist," you might want to check
with the Catholics first. And, your use of the phrase "creation myth" in
regard to Theosophy is your (pejorative) usage of *myth* as any description
of the processes of evolution with which you disagree. If you want to
discuss the Theosophical concepts, that's fine with me, but let's go to the
texts or at least talk specifics, instead of flippantly casting terms about
as they come to mind. It might be helpful to consider that there is an
alternative approach to either *creationism* or *Darwinism* (Using these
terms in the loose, popular senses of *god-made-the-world* or
*evolution-just-happens-by-biological-means.*) Theosophy suggests such an
alternative -- the involution of consciousness and the evolution of the
necessary forms to meet the needs of consciousness.

Finally, you continue to harp that "Theosophy denies man would have derived
from chimps," forgetting, I suppose, that even modern anthropology has long
since given up this simplistic notion. Blavatsky's explanation about the
origin of the anthropoids is only one (minor) point, among the many concepts
and conclusions found in Theosophy, that may or may not agree with the
currently popular "scientific" theories. And, you continue to state that
"Theosophy does this without any evidence to support this," without
addressing the issue raised by modern writers, such as Cremo, Thompson and
Denton to name but a few, that Science does exactly the same thing! You
consistently retort that "there is no evidence for that," without once
stating what sort of *evidence* you would accept, AND without offering any
evidence of your own to support your position! Is this the
highly-acclaimed *scientific method* you seem to want to support so
desperately?

In previous posts, I and others have put forward several essential issues
between Theosophy and Science. But, you are going to have to address those
before I go much further in this discussion.

Best Regards,
Wes