Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00171)

Based on the science ideas and commentary
that Chris Holmes has posted in response
to this question to everyone by Joe Fulton:

====================
> I am interested in how everyone here
> would present Theosophy to the rest of
> the world, given a wide forum.--Joe Fulton.
====================

...and because I strongly feel that it's
through science that the Theosophical
Movement can make a great impact on the
world, and that scientifically-knowledgeable
theosophists such Leon Maurer, who is always
posting here and addressing the scientific
community with science ideas in the light
of Theosophy, he, along with people like
Chris Holmes, and probably so many others
throughout our Movement, should get together
and skillfully figure out how to get a
writing team organized consisting of many
wise theosophists from all the theosophical
organizations, and from none.

I suggest that they organize and figure out
how to constantly get themselves published
in both the scientific journals of the world,
as well as in the general world-wide media.
All theosophists who are not scientifically-
inclined, but who have various kinds of
skills and knowledge and know-how to get
them invited into the mainstream public
dialogue, can also play an important part.

Besides getting published by other journals,
it might even be strategically-useful to
start a brand new web site that is strictly
for their action and for their own scientific
journal, whatever name they may give it.

My reason for posting this message is simply
to suggest the above actions and to point
to two useful scientific series of articles
that I pointed to in message number 7918 in
this forum back on September 3, 2002, as they
may be useful in strengthening and adding to
the ideas presented by Chris Holmes. They are
from back issues of THEOSOPHY magazine and
are located on my WisdomWorld.org web site:

"ANCIENT AND MODERN SCIENCE" & "SCIENCE AND THE SECRET DOCTRINE"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/7918

I sincerely do hope that this contribution of
starting-ideas for a possible action of some
kind is somewhat useful in stimulating others
who are much wiser than me into some kind of
a scientific writing and publishing action.

John DeSantis
(Compiler)
-------

Chris Holmes wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph P. Fulton" <jpfulton314@hotmail.com>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:07 PM
> Subject: Theos-World What if...
>
> I am interested in how everyone here would present Theosophy to the
> > rest of the world, given a wide forum. Joe Fulton
> >
>
> I will answer from my own perspective and interest areas--in the psychology
> of consciousness, and in creation science (physics, metaphysics and
> cosmology). You are invited to explore my book series dedicated to
> Blavatsky at www.zeropoint.ca, entitled "Within Without from Zero Points."
> Book I entitled "The Heart Doctrine: Mystical Views of the Origin and Nature
> of Human Consciousness" addresses the issues of zero point origins of
> consciousness; while Book II, "Microcosm/Macrocosm: Towards a Metaphysics
> and Cosmology of Consciousness" explores modern physics, cosmology and the
> Secret Doctrine, and the zero point origins of the universe, and the basis
> for the laws of physics.
>
> I take the term zero point from Blavatsky, and these books deal with the
> "zero point origins" of human consciousness and of the Cosmos, or Universe.
> In fact, Blavatsky wrote "... material points without extension ...
> (zero-points) are the materials out of which the "Gods" and other invisible
> powers clothe themselves in bodies." This idea is absolutely profound in
> the light of developments in modern physics over the past 20 years in
> particular.
>
> Blavasky's explanations of cosmogenesis and metaphysics anticipated by over
> a century a series of the modern ideas -- including creation from a
> singularity condition (a zero point); which emerges from the quantum vacuum,
> described as both a void and the plenum; which is a seven dimensional
> hyperspace. Her work anticipated the uncertainty principle, in her
> description of zero point dynamics; the wave/particle nature of matter; the
> EPR paradox, the non-local universe; Bohm's ideas of the fundamental
> holomovement, within the implicate, superimplicate orders; 11 dimensional
> Kaluza Klein supergravity theory proposed to unify all the known laws of
> physics into what Paul Davies calls one Godlike Superforce; the expanding
> universe which will eventually collapse--back to a zero point; the infinite
> divisiblity of the atom; seven dimensional strings in hyperspace; a
> hierarchy of broken symmetries in higher dimensional space which precipitate
> the manifestation of being out of Non-Being; and much more. She states that
> gravity did not exist, at least as the scientists understood it; which is
> now being vindicated by research into zero-point fields, anti-gravity
> devices and an electromagnetic understanding of vacuum states.
>
> In explaining the laws of science, Blavatsky described the seven inside
> as "digging holes in Space" to channel their intelligence/influences into
> the material realm. Thus, seven Laya Centers, seven invisible zero points,
> are established as a foundation for physical manifestation; seven invisible
> centers beyond the level of physical differentiation: "... all the so-called
> Forces of Nature, Electricity, Magnetism, light, heat, etc., are in esse,
> i.e., in their ultimate constitution, the differentiated aspects of that
> Universal Motion. ... for formative or creative purposes, the Great Law
> modifies its perpetual motion on seven invisible points within the area of
> the manifest Universe. (p.147)
> In this view, the true foundation for the laws of nature and of material
> quanta, and the foundation of human consciousness, are these invisible
> points, Laya Centers, which extend from physical dimensions into the
> metaphysical realms of Being/Non-Being and the Parent Space. Blavatsky's
> scheme and these archaic doctrines are beautifully illustrated by modern
> physical and cosmological theories. Scientists have penetrated into the
> void/plenum and hyperspace in their attempts to unify the physical laws and
> to understand the creation of the Universe. They have arrived at
> singularities, the quantum vacuum, a seven dimensional hyperspace, and a
> hierarchy of broken symmetries which generate form from formlessness, matter
> from nothingness-to sculpt the void. Blavatsky explained similar concepts
> over a century ago. Of course, Blavatsky expected the rejection of such
> concepts in her time, but predicted that "in the twentieth century of our
> era scholars will begin to realize that The Secret Doctrine has neither been
> invented or exaggerated, but, on the contrary, simply outlined."
>
> Scientists and consciousness researchers should take up Blavatsky's
> challenges to modern science and explore the depths of occult wisdom. The
> materialistic conception of blind matter moving about in empty four
> dimensional space is no longer valid even within the domain of established
> science. These concepts of zero point laya centers, the seven skinned
> Eternal Parent Space, and the void/plenum are the stuff of both science and
> science fiction. They suggest awesome possibilities for human consciousness
> and experience in a profoundly deep and mystical universe.
>
> These are a sample of ideas from the within without series on the
> cosmogenesis and metaphysics of the Secret Doctrine.
>
> Madame Blavatsky did not expect The Secret Doctrine to be seriously studied
> by scientists and scholars in her day. In fact, she wrote: "... the
> rejection of these teachings may be expected, and must be anticipated
> beforehand. No one styling himself a 'scholar' in whatever department of
> exact science, will be permitted to regard these teachings seriously. They
> will be derided and rejected a priori in this century; but only in this one.
> For in the twentieth century of our era scholars will begin to realize that
> The Secret Doctrine has neither been invented or exaggerated, but, on the
> contrary, simply outlined . . . " (Introduction to The Secret Doctrine,
> 1888) In 1888, Blavatsky's explanations of the creation of the Universe,
> and of physics and metaphysics, offered a viewpoint totally incomprehensible
> in terms of the then fashionable scientific viewpoints and theories. It was
> bound to be ignored and dismissed. As it happens however, in this strange
> universe, a century of scientific advances and the profound "new physics"
> and cosmology of our era, are beginning to vindicate Blavatsky's utterly
> awesome work on cosmic origins and ancient wisdom teachings.
>
> The second area of inquiry is into human consciousness. The mainstream of
> modern "so-called" objective science still believes that consciousness is
> created somehow out of the material processes of the brain, but no-one has
> any idea of what consciousness is, how it is produced, or what are its
> properties. By contrast, Blavatsky elaborated "the heart doctrine," as the
> Sons expand and contract through their own Hearts and Self." Only with the
> awakening of the heart, can we realize how the mind, in the head, is "the
> great slayer of the real." Modern psychology and science have no idea of
> the profound alternative view of consciousness inherent in the teachings of
> the Secret Doctrine. The Monad, or jivatma, is essentially a zero point
> source established within the higher dimensions of the heart Space.
> Blavasky's work provides the foundation for understand the physics and
> metaphysics of conscousness; as the Gods and other invisible powers clothe
> themselves in bodies based on "unextended point."
>
> Lastly, I would like to draw upon my favourite description of Blavatsky,
> from the editor of an English newspaper, W. Stead. In a letter written to
> Blavatsky in 1888, Stead commented:
> "You are a very great woman and I do not think that anyone but yourself
> (either man or woman) could have written The Secret Doctrine, nor do I feel
> competent, from the depths of my ignorance, even to express an opinion upon
> its extraordinary contents ... I do not profess to understand you, for you
> inhabit space of more dimensions than I can even conceive, but I am not so
> great a fool as to be unable to see that you have a genius quite
> transcendent .... (In Cranston, 1994, p. 361)
>
> These comments provide a most appropriate perspective on this remarkable
> woman, and this classic study of the ancient wisdom teachings.