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

re Leonardo's "Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy"

Nov 22, 2004 11:42 AM
by Mauri

Leonardo wrote, in part: <<... I refer specifically to AB, CWL and AAB --
all of whom followed the same religiously biased "party line" -- that had no basis in the original "Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy"
teachings given out by those same Masters, whom those writers made to contradict themselves after they spoke the real Truth to and through HPB (and sometimes, WQJ).>>

But seems to me that AB, CWL, AAB and their like might also be seen as having contributed different perspectives that, in turn, (depending on how those perspectives are interpreted), might be seen as having had a role as helpful contrasts by which the "original teachings" (re Esoteric/Wisdom Tradition) might be seen as even more convincing and valuable, comparatively speaking. Not that I'm saying that one can short-cut one's individual efforts/intepretations---which efforts/interpretations might, in some cases, (apparently ...), lead one to follow AB, CWL, AAB and their like, in whatever sense ...

I apologize for what might seem like an all too circular form of speculating. What can I say ... ^:-/ ...

<<It was relatively easy for such later writers to get away with these twists
and turns after HPB died, her papers were "edited" or expunged, and WQJ was
shoved into the background to die soon after. So, who was there around to point
out these pseudo theosophical distortions after 1890-96?>>

A. Cleather, for one, and ...

<<Therefore, no amount of assertions or referrals to "channeled" (which could
be self delusional or fabricated) *authorities* by those writers, or their
promoters, can convince me (or any other intuitive student who can test these
realities for themselves) that any of their writings actually constitute any
ultimate Truth or give any veracity to their interpretations -- including their
self-assertive conclusions that turn a purely impersonal metaphysical science
into a messianic and hierarchically ruled religious philosophy that goes directly against the fundamental precepts presented directly by the original Masters, or as direct quotations, through their sole "messenger," HPB... Who was forced
to use metaphors and so called "paradoxical" (or symbolic graphical) means in order to overcome the deficiencies of the English language she wrote in. Thus, all later attempts to use "plain English" must necessarily be insufficient to explain these metaphysical TRUTHS. Q.E.D.>>

You might be seen to have a point there, in a sense ...

<<In fact, IMO, even the "paradoxical" scriptures of the ancient Brahmans and
Buddhists, are much closer to the understanding of the true metaphysics and their relationship to the "Heart Doctrine" than the writings of any of these later pseudo theosophists. So, therefore, it behooves us to compare and think before making judgements about the "clarity" of any post HPB interpretations -- that were ostensibly based on a study (although personally biased view) of those original teachings by those later writers.

On the topic of "original teachings" as they might be seen in terms of "Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy," here's a quote from Ken Wilbur's QUANTUM QUESTIONS:

<<And as for the attempt to support a particular religious worldview by interpretations from modern physics? Einsten, representing the majority of these physicists, called the whole attempt "reprehensible." Schrodinger actually called it "sinister," and explained: "Physics has nothing to do with it. Physics takes its start from everyday experience, which it continues by more subtle means. It remains akin to it, does not transcend it generically, it cannnot enter into another realm ... because [religion's] true domain is far beyond anything in reach of scientific explanation." And Eddington was decisive: "I do not suggest that the new physics 'proves religion' or indeed gives any positive grounds for religious faith. For my own part I am wholly opposed to any such attempt.">>

So one might wonder about the sense in which there might be a "synthesis" of science, religion and philosophy ... I'm tending to speculate along the lines that that kind of "synthesis" would necessarily tend to get kind of mystical, and so could only be "exoterized," or modelled or Theosophized, at best (ie, while the Reality underlying such modeling can only be directly experienced, is beyond all attmpts to describe).


PS I tending to speculate that Leon and Leonardo might be one and the same person, more or less, but I can't be absolutely sure, (ie, being the kind of speculative guy I am), so ... Leonardo, if you run into Leon, could you ask him how he's doing these days ...

[Back to Top]

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