Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00231)

Leon wrote: <<Have you any idea why the SD was 
subtitled, "A Synthesis of Science, Religion and 
Philosophy?" And, why HPB said that without a 
*thorough* understanding of the three fundamental 
principles (with the scientific laws being the 
essence of the second "linking" principle) the entire 
teachings of theosophy would make no sense 
whatsoever? And, why she also said that theosophy, 
taken on faith alone, without scientific and philosophical 
understanding and conviction would be nothing more 
than another religious dogma destined to die on the vine? 
>>

Yes, the various exoteric views, no matter which way 
one turns them, are still exoteric. So, seeing as we in this 
duality world seem to be (for the most part?) limited 
to/by our various dualisitc, mayavic, exoteric "versions,"
I agree with you, Leon, that there might be forms of 
scientizing of Theosophy that would at least appear to be 
"more sense making" (in some way, to some people?) 
than the kind of abstractions (in somewhat comparative 
terms, possibly?) that I seem to prefer speculating about 
on these lists. 

The models of reality that were passed on to us by HPB 
and the Mahatmas are, (IMHSO), something that, even 
without much in the way of innate/direct understanding 
about them, I tend to find interesting. Apparently 
Gerald, on the other hand, having had more 
direct/experiential/"esoteric" knowledge of such models, 
finds them more meaningful than I can. Not having had 
such direct experiences, myself, I feel that I ought to not 
"state facts based on what I have read," but should, 
instead, try to read between the lines, as suggested by 
HPB. And so, not having had direct enough experiences 
of such models, I feel that my options, realistically 
speaking, in terms of comment making, are limited to 
speculation, for better or worse.

Best wishes,
Mauri