Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00136)

Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:
> Alice Bailey's teaching on the Christ is what I would consider 
> a "CRUDE literalism" or what HPB characterizes as "a dead 
> letter belief."
As one into science, and a belief that scientific studies have been and 
will continue to approach theosophical teachings, one of my problems 
with Bailey is her insistence on the etheric planet, "Vulcan", in the 
place where Vulcan wasn't (and several astrology books attribute THAT to 
Blavatsky, as well).

For those who are unaware, around 1860, it was discovered that 
Mercury's orbit wasn't quite what it should be. The astronomers made 
their calculations, and figured out that a small planet inside the orbit 
of Mercury in a specific position would account for this. They even 
named the planet, "Vulcan". And looked for it. And looked for it. And 
could not find it.

It wasn't until 1916 that Einstein (who was REPORTED to have had a 
copy of THE SECRET DOCTRINE on his desk) came out with an alternative 
explanation; certain things which were considered to be constants in 
Newtonian laws (such as mass and the relative passage of time) weren't 
so constant after all. By assuming that the speed of light in a vacuum 
is the same regardless of the relative velocity of the measurer, 
Einstein came up with a group of logical conclusions that exactly 
explained the variations in Mercury's orbit; no Vulcan was necessary.

Whether or not he had read THE SECRET DOCTRINE, this can be marked as 
the beginning of Theosophical ideas moving into modern science. 
Therefore, use of the planet Vulcan, even as an "etheric" planet, is, to 
my way of thinking, anti-Theosophical.

Bart