Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00219)

A correspondent writing to H.P. Blavatsky, the editor of 
THE THEOSOPHIST, wrote in part:

==============================================================

Talking the other day to a friend, who, like me, without 
being a Theosophist, takes a very great interest in the 
movements of your Society, I incidentally happened to 
remark that the "Brothers of the first section" were 
credited with such large powers, that even creation was 
not at times impossible to them. In support of my 
assertion, I instanced their own cup and saucer 
phenomenon, as narrated by Mr. Sinnett in his "Occult World," 
which phenomenon appeared to me to be something 
more than the mere reproduction, transference or 
unearthing from its hiding-place of an article lost 
or stolen, like the brooch. My friend, however, 
warmly objected to my statement--remarking that 
creation was not possible to man, whatever else 
he may be able to accomplish. 

=============================================================

Below is part of Madame Blavatsky's reply to the 
statement that "creation was NOT possible to man":

==============================================================

When our correspondent's friend denies that creation 
is possible for man, we can hardly assume that he 
does so from any conviction that he has sounded all 
the mysteries of Nature, and knowing all about the 
universe,--being able to account for all its phenomena--
has ascertained that the process, whatever that may be, 
which he conceives of as creation does not go on 
anywhere in obedience to the will or influence of man, 
and has further ascertained that there is something in 
man which makes it impossible that such a process should 
be accomplished. And yet without having done all that, 
it is bold of him to say that creation is impossible. 
Assuming that he is not a student of occult science,--
and the tone of the letter before us conveys the 
impression that he is not--our friend's friend when 
he makes his dogmatic statement, seems to be proceeding 
on the method but too commonly adopted by people of 
merely ordinary culture and even by a few men of science--
the method which takes a large group of preconceived 
ideas as a standard to which any new idea must be 
applied. If the new idea fits in with, and seems to 
support the old ones, well and good; they smile upon 
it. If it clashes with some of these they frown at 
it, and ex-communicate it without further ceremony."
Quoted from:
http://blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/IsCreationPossibleForMan.htm
=========================================================

Compare the above comments by Blavatksy with Master K.H.'s
relevant remarks below:

===========================================================

You seem to admire it [The Saturday Review] -- I do
not. However talented from the literary point of view,
a paper which gives vent to such unprogressive and
dogmatic ideas as the one I came across in it, lately,
ought to lose caste among its more liberal confreres.
Scientific men, it thinks -- "do not make at all good
observers" at exhibitions of modern magic, spiritism
and other "nine days wonders." This is certainly not
as it should be, it adds for, "knowing as well as
they do the limits of the natural (?!!) they should
begin by assuming that what they see, or what they
think they see, cannot be done, and should next
look for the fallacy" etc. etc. Circulation of the
blood, electric telegraph, railway and steamer argument
all over again. They know "the limits of the natural"!!
Oh, century of conceit and mental obscuration! And we
are invited to, London among these academical rags
whose predecessors persecuted Mesmer and branded St.
Germain as an impostor! All is secret for them as
yet in nature. Of man -- they know but the skeleton
and form; hardly are they able to outline the paths
through which the invisible messengers they call
"senses" pass on their way to man's perceptions;
their school science is a hot-bed of doubts and
conjectures; it teaches but for its own sophistry,
infects with its emasculation, its scorn for truth,
its false morality and dogmatism, and its
representatives would boast knowing "the limits
of the natural." Bus -- my good friend; I would
forget you belonged to this generation, and are
an admirer of your "modern Science." Her behests
and oracular verdicts are on a level with the
papal -- non possumus.
===================================================
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-49.htm

Now some may feel that K.H.'s remarks about the
scientists of his time are exaggerated or don't
apply to what scientists have done in more
recent times.

But consider the following estimation given
by Dr. Ray Hyman about 10 years ago. I should
point out that Hyman is a psychologist and
one of the foremost critics and skeptics of
parapsychology but his frank admission of the following
is worth pondering on:

==========================================================

"...members of the scientific community often judge the 
parapsychological claims WITHOUT FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of the 
experimental evidence.

VERY FEW of the scientific critics have examined even 
one of the many experimental reports of psychic phenomena.

Even FEWER, IF ANY, have examined the bulk of the 
parapsychological literature....

Consequently, parapsychologists have justification 
for their complaint that the scientific community is 
dismissing their claims WITHOUT A FAIR HEARING.

[Bold added to some of Hyman's text.]

==========================================================

Yet, as KH says, these scientific critics claim they 
know "the limits of the natural"!!

Daniel Caldwell
http://hpb.cc
http://theosophy.info