Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00020)

Hi Steve,

I'm going to do something in this post that I almost never do: get
modern science to corroborate theosophy.

First of all - I wasn't aware that HPB claimed the whole universe was
a materialisation, but now that you mention it - I guess she does. :)

Second: modern science teaches - and it is taught in high school these
days - that matter can be converted into light-energy, which is surely
not as 'physical'. So 'once upon a time' it is reasonable to suppose
that the process went the other way: light turned into matter...

Blavatsky went one step further of course - light itself would be seen
as a materialisation of some 'higher' level... and so on and so forth.

Anyhow, wait for proof and you will be waiting till the end of time
(and that will never come).

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "stevestubbs" <stevestubbs@y...> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@y...> 
> wrote:
> > Another 
> > assumption is that the phenomena produced by Blavatsky can either 
> > prove or disprove the validity of Theosophy as a systemic teaching. 
> > Is it so?
> 
> If materialization could be shown to be a fact that would offer 
> considerable support to the SD, which assumes the solar system is a 
> materialization.
> 
> If the materializations were a squalid hoax the way Bart Lidofsky 
> insists that they were, that would regrettably undermine the 
> credibility of everything Blavatsky said and did.
> 
> If her clairvoyance was real, and it is probably slightly more 
> reasonable to assume that it was than to assume that it was not (I 
> would plaece those two at about equal probabilities, in the abence of 
> further evidence) then the immensely difficult problem arises how to 
> validate a clairvoyant perception of reality that by its nature 
> cannot be checked any other way. I have studied that problem for 
> many years and still have found no way to get around relying on faith.