Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00035)

In a message dated 09/03/02 1:37:30 PM, brianmuehlbach@yahoo.com writes:

> Reg."Theosophy does not claim that man derived from monkeys.
> Nor has any responsible science, including Charles Darwin, ever done 
>so."
>
>Brian: In the strictest sense, humans and monkeys or apes, are both 
>descended from a common ancestor. 

So is everything else in the universe "descended from a common ancestor"... 
The universe itself. And in the strictest sense this includes BOTH the 
subjective consciousness (spirit) and objective bodies (matter) of both 
humans, and apes. 

But, mankind's, self conscious mind (that makes them a unique order of 
beings) did not descend from apes, monkeys or any other animal species. 
Thus, Mankind, from a theosophical standpoint, as individual rays of pure 
consciousness, along with self aware and thoughtful, higher ("hu-man") mind 
-- are NOT their bodies or lower, instinctive animal mind.... And, therefore, 
except for anthropologists, there's no point in discussing where those mere 
physical lumps of protoplasm that make up physical bodies came from or 
descended through.

>But the common ancestor of 
>humans and modern apes can pretty much be called an ape too (an 
>older ape)...or at least a monkey of some sort. Both statements are 
>correct and I can't really recall which one Darwin specifically
>endorsed. 

That's too bad -- since your entire argument is specious and misleading, and 
Darwin never endorsed that Man per se descended from any particular animal 
species. Nor can modern science -- in spite of gene studies... That can only 
determine the "physical" traits of organic beings, but have no relationship 
to spirit, mind, or character (including inborn "talents" unique to Man -- 
which is the only "Man" theosophy is concerned with and teaches about). Think 
about this. Man's or any animal's physical sense of smell or touch could be 
said to have descended from an amoebae. Want more examples? Waste of time.

>As I mentioned a few days ago, Darwin's exact thoughts hardly even 
>matter now, given the weight of more recent anthropological theory
>and data. And its not just It's not just fossils.

Oh yeah... That's interrrrresting. "it's not just it's not just"? (Is that a 
Freudian slip? :-) Never mind. Well, how about giving us examples of such 
"recent anthropological theory and data," what it assumes or concludes about 
what, and just exactly what valid evidence, if any, it is based on? (Not 
that it would make any difference in determining the true origin of "Man" as 
theosophy sees them) 

LHM

P.S. (for lurkers;-) Isn't it amazing that deniers of theosophy, who reach 
for any negative straw they can find, no matter how specious to discredit HPB 
-- don't really understand what aspect of Anthropogenesis HPB is talking 
about when she refers to Man's descent? All they can see is the prefix 
"anthropo-" as referring to all two legged animals, and make the same 
linguistic mistake that anthropologists do -- who can't stomach the idea, 
like most material "scientists" (another misnomer:-) that there is more to 
the Universe' (and Man's) involution and evolution than just "physical 
substance" (or two leggedness).