[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: [bn-study] Re: asking for help

Nov 15, 2004 12:53 PM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck

Nov 15 2004

Dear Friend G:

Thanks for joining us and writing to introduce yourself.

Consider yourself very welcome.

We are all students and inquirers and interested in the exchange of ideas
and also trying to learn what THEOSOPHY can teach.

We all have a lot to learn and are learning new things every day.  

There are no finalities, but, hopefully with each other’s help, only an
ever-focused sharpening of understanding.  

Here is one aspect of thought:

May we assume that you have visited this Theosophy Study Discussion List
because you hope that there may be answers from students of Theosophy which
you could compare with the thesis you may have already set up.

You have said:
I am a newcomer to this philosophy. I like to take this opportunity to share
a personal experience about how and why my life began to shift. At my age,
I have had an experience full life, many which have been positive and some
that others would considered negative. But I did not begin to change my
mental environment until I became aware that my life is a manifestation of
my thoughts.
I agree that we need to replace the race conditioning of duality with a
self-awareness that makes us self-responsible for our action of this plane.
When we begin to consciously think of how we fit in and are part of the
whole. We can come to understand that it is not about controlling but about
being in control... We are powerful spiritual beings having a human
experience that needs to be recognized and taken control of.

Here is one way of looking at things : 

The present day Scientist and Theosophical students – and we are all
students -- study the information provided and compare them.

Our “Science” tries to explain by hypothesis and theories what may havebeen
the “past” of present day observations (of course limited by the
availability of artifacts and relics, and their present knowledge of the
LAWS, so far detected and observed to be operating, in many correlated
departments of Nature).

No one will dispute facts. One proviso in this work of scientific discovery
and identification is the one of extreme honesty – no secrets, no hiding --
is that all facts and discoveries (anomalies especially) are to be made
available for all to see and draw conclusions about. 

>From evidence occasionally made available, it would seem that on occasion,
certain facts (and artifacts) are removed from the glare of publicity – and
we might conclude that this is done because they could upset or question
some well-established hypothesis or theory. If true, this is not strict
“honesty.” Where has the “public” been invited to review the “facts?” This I
have looked for but rarely if ever found in a systematic, scientific way.

As a result, I, for one distrust scientific hypotheses, and any kind of
pontification. There are in Science no “authorities” – only seekers,
observers and honest, accurate reporters.

As a case in point, let me refer you to the voluminous work HIDDEN
ARCHEOLOGY (by Cremo and Johnson) published in San Diego, and a second
volume issue two years later, in which they document the reception by
scientists of their first book and the “facts” it displays.  

As we are speaking of disagreements and anomalous discoveries, several
authors down the years have pointed to these and (to my knowledge) have
never been thoroughly refuted by Science – or given prominence -- to my

We may take the writings of John Anthony West, Von Danniken, Emanuel
Velikovsky, Charles Fort, H. P. Blavatsky. These are four authors, who in
their writings, articles, books -- have challenged – not Science’s facts --
but their interpretations of the past as they have reconstructed it in their
widely accepted (but rarely re-investigated) theories and hypotheses.
There are in existence challenging anomalies that demand a review of the
older theories – after all, a “theory, or, an hypothesis” are not inflexible
and are always subject to revision as new facts are discovered.

In my opinion, the exposing of challenges to scientific “hypothesis and
theories” show us, who are thinkers and observers, that they are not
invariably of the highest value (although they are often taught as “truths).
They cannot be adopted or treated as “authoritative.”

There are differences to be investigated.  
One may well ask: Why is it a fact that there are disagreements? We present
our views and findings, you have your own to compare. Naturally we will
present to you what we know in terms drawn from Theosophy as you have
approached us to find out what THEOSOPHY says.  
As to providing you with information from “other systems,” while this is
available, we have not all done that extensive work and concentrated it. I
believe it will prove difficult (but ought to be initiated), as the
fundamental Theosophical approach is: that it, Theosophy, is a very ancient
system of continued Scientific research and observation in all departments
of Nature, and of the world religions, philosophies, and also this
observation and recording in old as well as modern Sciences, are derived
from it.  

As an example, in H P B’s “The SECRET DOCTRINE” you will find it stated that
the doctrines discussed have an antiquity going back some at least 18
million years.  

HPB states those are actually physically in the possession of the “Masters
of Wisdom.” That exceeds by a great many years, and cycles of years, any
concept of time that the research done by organized Science in the past 300
years -- (I mean, since “Orientalism,” began with the scientists that
Napoleon 1 had accompany him to Egypt in the very early 19th century.)

It is of course very annoying to find that the ancients (India, China,
Egypt, Iran, the Incas and Mayans, etc…) had made discoveries and had
observed the movement of the stars for millennia before our present
“discoveries.” In many cases we (our Science) corroborates those, and in
some we have disagreement. The main point and attitude we, as
investigators and Scientists, ought to always adopt ought to be: Lets
verify. Let’s freely admit that we have discovered evidence that shows
antiquity, in many parts of the world, had processes and used materials they
were able to manufacture for which we have yet to discover the secrets. 

There is no “shame” in this, but any claims to novelty disappear in the
rightful process of verification. 
Theosophical sources are the writings of Mme. Blavatsky: books and
articles, most of which can be studied and understood by anyone.. Also, to
some extent, they have to be individually supplemented with first hand
observation and inquiries over years. 
Neither you, nor we (as students of Theosophy), are the final arbiters in
this. We do make comparisons. Some we understand and others we do not. We
are continually learning, all of us.  

But, as I understand it, it is facts that we are looking for, as well as,
the supporting of mental acuity and freedom of thought.  

Those who worship at the shrine of TRUTH and FACT are contemptuous of no
source of information, nor of any anomalies, or of contemporary or earlier
work done by any one. We seek for traces of similarity, of analogy, or

Look through ISIS UNVEILED, (by HPB) if you wish to see what facts and
events are brought forward for consideration there. It tends to point to
important evens and anomalies that the Science of her days (and now, still)
need to verify. On publication, ISIS UNVEILED created a sensation, and in a
week all copies of the book were sold. It has been kept in print since

Eleven years later The SECRET DOCTRINE was issued;. There you have a
synopsis and review of the Occult records of the history of our Earth’s
formation and the evolution of mankind. These are meticulously contrasted
with Science and its theories as known and taught in her time of writing.
Some of those are still maintained. In many cases, and most often in terms
of cycles and time–periods, the SECRET DOCTRINE does not agree with the
current theories and hypotheses of modern Orientalism and Science. But that
does not make them wrong, or extraordinarily fanciful, or suspect. [see S D
II, pp. 78-80]
We (as students of Theosophy) take the position that NATURE (or Deity)
already contains everything. It is Nature as a fully conscious and
intelligent lawful ENTITY of enormous size – which, as a whole, supports
every detail of our needs (as well as those of all other beings in
existence). It gives us, not only our “life,” but that of all ‘beings’ that
make up our total environment. Law and Laws alone govern every aspect of
being and manifestation. Our Science studies those. NATURE is the universal
shrine of our common worship. Its organization ranges through seven stages
between the limits of INFINITY and NOUGHT. It is a calculus made living and
perfectly obvious to the seeker.

All living beings, of whatever kind, are supported by the united processes
of laws that Nature has already in place. [ Chemistry, physics, mathematics,
astronomy, biology, medicine, sociology, linguistics, politics, history,
etc… are as old as thinking man -- a period said to comprise at least 18
million years. [see S D I, p. 150 footnote ]  

All the discoveries of Science are simply the revealing and verifying of
what is already there laid down and operating under Nature’s control and
supervision. There is no “novelty” only DISCOVERY, and verification of
facts observed.
Our present knowledge has, and is, gradually being built up. It is NOT
built on the basis that any one individual “knows best,” or knows
“everything,” and therefore challenging words like “lies,”
“misunderstandings,” “charlatanry,” “fraud,” etc. are not used,unless there
is verified evidence, at FIRST HAND of their existence. Their use in inquiry
and conversation implies to me, that certain judgments have been made.
Permit me to question their validity.  

If you have read the literature of Theosophy, then, in a broad-minded, free
capacity to embrace information, let me ask what are your specific
objections to statements made there. Inquiry starts with dialog. But if
there is a pre-judged position assumed by either party, at that point
inquiry and exchange ceases. I then becomes argument – and “opinions” as
viewed by some impartial third party” are made to emerge and strand on
whatever basis they deserve. 

Incidentally, have you have read Sylvia Cranston’s biography of H.P.B.
(Tarcher, New York) as it answers seriously and with documented facts all
the innuendos cast at this life and work of this remarkable Personage
If permitted, let me ask, if you have read ISIS UNVEILED or The SECRET
DOCTRINE? I am interested in the opinions you have to offer, and their
If one has had the benefit of a wide acquaintance with Science and Academic
research in general, one may find that the most valuable attitudes among
such wonderful and dedicated people can be classed as humility, diligence,
and unprejudiced research – and of course, this has to include a wide
research, and a good knowledge of all adjacent disciplines.  

Those who are at the forefront of discovery in Science, Orientalism, and
Philosophy ask probing questions, seek for facts, and do not make
pronouncements, designed to support their views, guesses and opinions of the
past or present. To take but a few we have at the cutting edge of Science:
Hawkings, Penrose, Sheldrake, Margulis, Mandelbrot, Viswanath Diwakar, etc.
Theosophy fills gaps that Science is still trying to bridge, and for which
(and it is a lack of specific knowledge) it has erected “possible views” of
plausible causes and procedures in the establishing of a reasonable
“history,” and calls them: theories and hypotheses, which are found to
frequently change as the history of Science reveals, when new evidence
It would seem to me, that you may have adopted some conclusions which today
are acceptable in your “Discipline.” And it also seems to me that you are
seeking to verify and prove your pre-judged position. To me, this is most
commendable as it will enable you to make strict scientific research
You have obviously made a unique study -- leading to specialization. You
have therefore assumed that the solutions (theories and hypotheses) accepted
by your “authorities” and adopted by you are correct. But are you not in
the process of proving them?
In contrast to you, I prefer to call myself a “generalist.” I listen to all
sides and take notes and reserve assuming any position until it is clear we
are all considering such facts and reports as are available.  

I try to cover a number of inter-related disciplines, since it is evident
that Nature has interlocking and cohesive systems in place. For example, on
careful examination I believe we might say: Nature (taken as a whole)
appears to be infinitely sensitive and responsive to the needs of the
individual components of its many systems. One can see order and precision
in the motions, and influence surrounding an atom, a crystal, an element or
a chemical compound, a plant, an animal, a man, a mathematical equation, or
a chemical, physical or astronomical problem -- or take the remarkable
advance in astro-physics and look at a Solar System and the large number of
interacting Galaxies that the use of the Hubble telescope has revealed in
all directions. Is the Universe in fact an enormous SUN ? Are we bathed
(as unit parts of its inhabitants) with a constant stream of the most varied
radiations? We live on Earth, but our “heads” are in those far stars. Are we
then to limit and sequester our knowledge? What roads of endeavour lead to
Law and Laws are found to rule everywhere. Science depends on the honesty
and accuracy of Nature in all its works near and far. Science makes its
declarations based on the facts it discovers. It chooses NATURE as the
final authority. It says that any discovery can be replicated and
demonstrated by any one else. It is the universality of facts that is
valuable, and not the individual opinions of the discoverers.  
In the orient, the oldest texts were transmitted verbally with great control
over sound and inflection because (and I have tapes that demonstrate this)
concealed in the sound were some of the “codes” whereby secret knowledge was
transmitted. The superficial sounds in ancient verses were made to present
a coherency that served as a kind of “blind” which diverted and deflected
the attention of a newcomer or a non-initiate.
There are certain euphonic similarities which, studied in terms of actual
linguistic distribution (present and past) are said to have a relationship
-- but your study and research says that is not so. It remains to find out
what is correct. [ see SECRET DOCTRINE (on language and codes: I, pp.
269, 307-25, 362, 568; II, pp, 198-201, 334-5, 364, 560, ]
Again, neither of us are either right or wrong, but we seek to find out
where the greater accuracy is. Your research and mine may overlap in
places, but they are not invariably coincident, and certainly neither of us
can assume that their position and our particular observations are
necessarily final, and the statements made by the other are idiotic. And as
I understand it, in a life time of dealing with experts in all departments
of Scientific research, prejudice is usually careless of the findings of
other disciplines, unless the researcher has a rare and inquisitive (even
intuitive) nature and is determined to find the TRUTH by any and every
means, and accept no conclusions unless they are proven to general
satisfaction. We accept nothing and reject nothing. The future will teach

[Incidentally, you will find a full range of Theosophical literature “on
line” at 


    Books "on line" and for downloading

        The FRIENDLY PHILOSOPHER (Robert Crosbie)
        ETERNAL VERITIES  (Robert Crosbie)
        POINT OUT THE WAY [Answers to Questions at an 
"Ocean" Class (J G)
       	OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY  (Judge)
        THE DHAMMAPADA  ( Footfalls of the Law ) 
(Gautama Buddha)
THE LIGHT OF ASIA  (Gautama Buddha - life & teachings)
       	THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875 - 1950)  History


We, the entire Universe, ever pursues a common and conjoint path of
discovery, so while recording facts and events, our final conclusions ever
ride along with us, and have to remain as flexible hypotheses  -- they help
us understand until they for lack of finality, break-down and have to be
reframed. The general plan is there all right, but as we all progress
through time and events, we reframe the conclusions (Karma) we will have to
meet in the future. 

There is no “stasis” (except some assumed ones) anywhere. What are those?

1	the UNIVERSE exists. (On many planes of substance and sensitivity)

2	we as OBSERVERS exist – we are immortals as no beginning or end to
our work seems logical. Bodies wear out and die, but Karma provides us with
new ones, and so one and on… (we, as Essential Beings, are not physical nor
mental, but of some kind of SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE that survives the continual
“ravages of change,” in its correlates of time, and alterations in space.
3.	the ongoing relations between the UNIVERSE and OURSELVES are an
essential part of this timeless and limitless REALITY. In the SECRET
DOCTRINE they are said to be seven-fold [ see S D I, 157-8; II, 296 ].
I hope this will help,

Best wishes, 



-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert 
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 7:07 AM
Subject: [bn-study] Re: asking for help

Hey Dallas, I am a newcomer to this philosophy. I like to take this
opportunity to share a personal experience about how and why my life began
to shift. At my age, I have had an experience full life, many which have
been positive and some that others would considered negative. But I did not
begin to change my mental environment until I became aware that my life is a
manifestation of my thoughts.
I agree that we need to replace the race conditioning of duality with a
self-awareness that makes us self-responsible for our action of this plane.
When we begin to consciously think of how we fit in and are part of the
whole. We can come to understand that it is not about controlling but about
being in control... We are powerful spiritual beings having a human
experience that needs to be recognized and taken control of.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application