Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00141)

Bart, you wrote:

"Well, let's see now. We have phenomena which have 
never been duplicated, and we have natural explanations. 
You take your pick, and everybody else can take theirs."

You say "...we have NATURAL explanations...."

You mean NATURAL as opposed to supernatural or 
superphysical??? Natural as in PHYSICAL explanations?

>From my reading, your answer above appears
similar if not in fact identical to the kind of reasoning 
found in skeptical literature, especially of the CSICOP variety.

Most of the ideas that constitute Theosophy [not just
materializations of objects] could be
rejected with that kind of thinking and is in fact
......rejected. 

Such skeptics say that ESP, auras, reincarnation, 
etc. are phenomena that have never been duplicated or tested
under true scientific conditions. And there are good natural [read 
PHYSICAL] explanations that explain these phenomena. There
is no need to resort to or invoke supernatural or metaphysical
explanations of astral planes & forces, of superphysical
entities, etc. etc.

As I said previously, Randi's stance on these subjects is
perfectly understandable. He believes in only a physical world and
physical matter and forces, etc. etc. 

H.P. Blavatsky writes:

"Science does not allow the existence of any supersensuous universe 
AT ALL to which the reign of law could be extended; nor can it 
conceive the possibility of any other state of consciousness than our 
present terrestrial one...."

Certainly this description by HPB covers the underlying background 
assumptions of both Randi and probably most of the CSICOP skeptics.

And so it would appear that your appeal to "natural explanations"
fits in more with a materialistic or physicalistic view of the
universe.

Notice what HPB says about the phenomena, whether it was
materializing a teacup or an adept appearing in his "astral body":

"Never were the phenomena presented in any other character than that 
of instances of a power over perfectly natural though unrecognized 
forces, and incidentally over matter, possessed by certain 
individuals who have attained to a larger and higher knowledge of the 
Universe than has been reached by scientists and theologians, or can 
ever be reached by them, by the roads they are now respectively 
pursuing. Yet this power is latent in all men, and could, in time, be 
wielded by anyone who would cultivate the knowledge and conform to 
the conditions necessary for its development."

I may be missing something here but it seems to me that anyone
attracted to Theosophy and who adopts or accepts any of the 
Theosophical ideas would certainly be open to the view given by HPB.
I can understand why the Randis of the world would not.

Daniel