Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00215)

Steven,

Thanks again. 

However, I think you misinterpreted my statement. It was not intended to 
imply that theosophy has any need to "appeal to scientists or people." But it 
did say that (as HPB pointed out} theosophy must be taught ("spread broadcast" 
she said) to ordinary people in such a manner, and in the "language of this 
age" -- so that they will understand the fundamental truth behind the immutable 
scientific laws that govern karma and reincarnation -- which will, in turn, 
prove to them that altruism and universal brotherhood is a law of nature... HPB 
also said that it was the duty of all theosophists through self devised and 
self determined study and effort to arrive at self realization so as to 
translate that teaching into the "language of this age," and in turn, transmit it to 
the world at large. 

The Masters knew that such knowledge would be the only way to teach them that 
to break such a law -- by ignoring it or "acting in a manner not in accord 
with nature" (i.e., committing such "sins" as separation of one's self from 
other selves, harm to other beings in any way, etc.) whether in thoughts or deeds 
-- leads to karmic retribution in this life and future lives yet to come... 
And, that each one's destiny is completely in one's own hands. All the rest of 
the "bleeding heart" ideas and preachiness that rely on sentimental "love thy 
neighbor," "turn the other cheek," "thou shalt not...," etc., admonitions has 
never worked in the past and certainly will never work in the future. 

So, in order for people to accept those laws, and thereby, give up their 
selfish materialism that leads to wars, ecological disasters, and other problems 
of the world -- not to mention a retardation of human evolution -- they must 
either find out the scientific truths behind karma and reincarnation, 
themselves, or accept the teachings of their "gurus" -- who today are the "scientists" 
of every discipline (and particularly, those working on advanced 
multidimensional string theories that are getting closer and closer to theosophical 
metaphysics, as HPB predicted) and who will eventually prove those truths (with a 
little kick in the ass by my ABC theory that puts consciousness into their 
pictures:-) so that everyone can understand them... As simply as Einstein explained 
the ideas of relativity and the true metaphysical nature of physical reality -- 
that is counter intuitive with respect to our "educated" material "science" 
(which gives us our Cell phones, etc.), or to our physical senses conditioned 
by that same false Science (but working technology). Please note, that quantum 
and relativity theories are mutually incompatible -- since quantum physics is 
just a limited aspect of true metaphysics, that is nothing more than a 
contrived mathematical concept which enables the solid state digital technology to 
work. It is no more valid as an overall picture of reality than was Newtonian 
mechanics prior to the Einstein theories or relativity -- which proved E=mc^2, 
curved space, gravity as a spatial distortion due to mass, light as both 
energy and mass (a wave and a particle), etc., (all of which came directly out of 
the Secret Doctrine). See: 
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html

Fortunately, there is much more in the SD (especially, when it explains the 
origins of and connections between consciousness and matter, mind and brain, 
etc.)... But, unfortunately, Einstein died before he could prove a "unified 
field theory" -- that had to include consciousness. (BTW; The ABC theory picks up 
where he left off.) Also, unfortunately, most people accept the materialist 
view that the quantum physicists are satisfied with -- since it works for 
them, and justifies the selfish materialism of the beneficiaries of their 
technologies... The so called "ordinary man in the street"... That dreamily wanders 
through life suffering in a fog of ignorance about who and what he truly is, 
where he is really going, and why all he has to look forward to in life is a few 
moments of ephemeral pleasures before losing all the powers and things he so 
laboriously gathered and finally dying and rotting in a grave? And, isn't it a 
shame that whatever he left behind, including his offspring, is left holding 
the same bag in the same blind mess of a world he left behind in worse shape 
than when he came into it.

It's this assuredness of material life as the only reality and their 
separateness from it of the dyed in the wool materialists and gullible religionists 
(most people) that has to be broken down intellectually first, before one can 
"become like a child" (or baby) ... When one can directly accept the true 
reality and one's unity with it -- along with the complete intellectual (as well as 
intuitive) assurance that it couldn't be any other way. Remember, to be such 
a baby in intuitive consciousness, without such intellectual understanding of 
the true reality in one's already mature mind, would not enable one to 
continue functioning in this world and be a responsible adult with all the 
obligations that one would still have to fulfill -- not to mention having the important 
ability to teach that understanding to others -- which is the obligatory role 
of all true theosophists. 

Such a change of mind, spread throughout the entire human race -- is what 
theosophy, as given out in this time and age, is all about. Otherwise, why would 
HPB devote more than 90% of her writings to the explanation of the 
theosophical metaphysics? So, who is there that can do that spreading (other than us 
theosophists who know how to explain theosophy in plain English so, not only a 
scientist, but also a child could understand it)? Incidentally, I've explained 
ABC to pre teen age children, and they have no problem understanding it, and 
fitting it in with their scientific and technological understandings. The only 
problem is (among those not brainwashed by religious parents) they give more 
credence to their science teachers and their materialized explanations (since 
they are afraid to include consciousness in their teachings). 

So, I disagree with your interpretation of theosophy as solely "the science 
of being human." Theosophy was not given out to the world primarily for that 
purpose. All the world's religions and yoga's already covers that more than 
adequately -- without having to write almost 2000 pages of the Secret Doctrine 
(and even much more pages than that in explanatory articles by both HPB and 
WQJ) to scientifically explain the metaphysics behind those moral-ethical 
teachings. It was given out so that all the previous religious teachings that relied 
on faith in personal Gods, Messiahs, revelations, vicarious atonement's, 
commandments, preachments, etc., etc., would be countermanded with a clear and 
final scientific understanding of metaphysical reality, proving the reality of 
karma and reincarnation as well as one's own responsibility for both self 
salvation (realization) and the salvation of the entire human wave of evolution -- 
that would need no "higher" authorities or "Gods" to enforce. But, which would 
enforce itself through knowledge and understanding, alone. 

Universal brotherhood cannot become a reality and the world saved from 
destruction by man's misunderstanding of his responsibility for it, or by 
goody-goody preachment, or by edicts, or by sitting in empty minded meditation 
contemplating ones navel. That understanding, based on a true knowledge of both 
Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis was the only purpose for theosophy as it was given 
out to the modern world... As the "esoteric" teaching of scientific 
metaphysics based on fundamental principles that, when understood properly, would 
justify all theosophical moral and ethical precepts. 

Therefore, unless everyone thoroughly understands that scientific 
metaphysical basis of the true nature of ALL reality (with the help of the advanced 
science that is gradually approaching these truths) -- the human race will keep on 
muddling along in its ignorance until the entire world comes crashing down 
around us, and as HPB warned, the entire human race (what's left of it) will fall 
back another million years of evolution. When are we going to learn that 
theosophists talking to and arguing with theosophists will never get us anywhere? 


That is why (in my work on ABC which interprets theosophical metaphysics in 
scientific terms) I am interested only in spurring the academic scientists 
along their destined path to eventually merge their science with theosophy -- so 
that they, as the gurus (having now gained a scientific "religion" 
themselves:-) of the masses in this age, can convince those masses of the truths of karma 
and reincarnation. When that happens, theosophy will be recognized as the 
true "science of life" by everyone, and we students can then become the respected 
teachers of the coming new 6th sub-race during this Aquarian Age. I believe 
that that's all the Masters and HPB expected from any of us.

Not to disagree with your observations about science -- I hope this clarifies 
my own view with respect to Science and Theosophy, and why theosophists must 
learn how to explain theosophy in scientific terms if they want to be of any 
use to the "Movement" in this most critical time in theosophical history. It's 
good to remember that none of the teachings were given out solely for our own 
personal salvation or enlightenment -- but entirely so that we each, through 
study and practice, can become an individual "nucleus of universal 
brotherhood" and "better able to help and teach others."

Best wishes,

Leon



"Steven Levey" <sallev1@yahoo.com>I writes:

Leon
Great job of collating all of this discussion.
The only difference in my mind is regarding this:

"To see it this way, in the only way that theosophy will ever be able 
to become scientifically valid in the eyes of ordinary people. And, 
by so understanding, eliminate its "mysticism" engendered by the 
theosophical jargon that prevents them from comprehending the 
scientific basis of karma and reincarnation, or the universality of 
the fundamental laws of cycles and periodicity upon which 
these "processes" and all the laws of nature are based upon."

To tell you the truth, I don't think Theosophy has any need to make 
itself appealing to the scientists or "ordinary People" of this day 
or any other. In fact I think, it is quite in the reverse. Not that 
scientists need to make their "jargon" more appealing, but, since 
each scientist is a human being first, like "ordinary people", and 
Theosophy is the science of being human, it is in that sense that 
they (both Scientists and ordinary people) will have to "know" the 
similarities, then the jargon will be irrelevant. "Knowing" as I am 
using it, is the mystical connection available to anyone, and the 
language of expression will often differ per person, not to mention 
Movements.
Theosophy, as an international movement, which takes on the name 
appropriate for a given period of human cultural history, regardless 
of society names, is simply the meaning behind things manifest. 
Therefore, Science is in the business of making material sense out of 
what has been "Known" for ever, by anyone, "ordinary people" 
included, who have clarified themselves enough to see those 
meanings. And I mean, anyone. My youngest daughter unconsciously 
knows things about the world that I have forgotten or covered up by 
my so-called adult intellectualism. Ergo the phase of Jesus: "You must 
become as a child to enter into the Kingdom". This is real life, 
where knowing happens all of the time, and Science will no more 
validate or invalidate this (mystical) awareness no matter what they 
do. 
I don't mean to sound cynical about Science (ha, it must sound 
like it), only the prevailing attitude it engenders. This culture 
obviously benefits immensely from Science turning its findings into 
useful goods of all kinds.

Steve
-- In theosophia@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> Steve,
> I think it would be more pertinent to answer you below in the form of a 
> dialogue in response to: 
> Message: 3 
> 
> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:16:22 -0000
> From: "Steven Levey" <sallev1@y...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 73
> 
> 
> Leon-I have to admire your thoroughness in your critique of the 
> article.
> 
> [LM] Thanks. Once I get wound up in trying to explain any point or 
> conclusion based on my theory of ABC -- which doesn't deviate in one iota 
> from the occult metaphysics taught ("in the words and between the lines") 
in 
> the Secret Doctrine -- I like to dot every i and cross every t while 
avoiding 
> any theosophical jargon. Especially, the difficult to define Sanskrit 
words. :-) 
> 
> [SL] However, do you really think that anyone in Modern Science will 
> really be able to satisfy all of the criteria necessary to actually 
> describe the occult existence of something which actually exists 
> within "spiritual" Space? I mean, you have to admit, he has done 
> well. And when he leaves the "gyron" creation up to Newton's God, 
> isn't he really saying Karma? I mean a number of very intuitive men 
> such as Newton were lacking terminology for what they "felt", and did 
> the best they could. Even Karl Boehme, the Swiss Occultist used the
> term "God" to describe the Law of Karma. It was just the only 
> language he had (German) and needs to be taken in the context of his 
> other explanations.
> 
> [LM] Of course, science will never be able to describe any occult existence 
> of the inner fields -- so long as they base their description on objective 
> evidence. However, there's no reason why such existence can't be described 
> mathematically as well as logically from a scientifically valid geometric 
and 
> topological point of view -- so that non theosophists can understand it. 
And, 
> also, it could be described scientifically if the physicists would admit 
> the validity of subjective evidence. 
> 
> Remember, HPB said that everything in the universe was "electrical" in 
> nature, and she also left no gaps between the abstract source of both 
> consciousness and matter and the first emanation of the "abstract motion" 
or 
> spinergy that formed the first phenomenal fields of material substance or 
triune 
> monadic "fields of consciousness" which, in turn, ultimately involved 
through five 
> iterations into the initial dual 7-fold nature of the primal universe. "The 
three, 
> the one, the four, the one, the five, the twice seven, the sum total" -- to 
> quote the Book of Dzyan (which, in fact, is what the whole Secret Doctrine 
is 
> based on). 
> 
> Wasn't the whole purpose of HPB's presentation of a scientific theosophical 
> synthesis designed to eliminate the vagaries and misconceptions that those 
> mystic philosophers had engendered by their loose language and references 
> to "God" as the "creator"? And, didn't she make great effort to give us a 
> thorough and complete glossary that explained all the foreign term she was 
> forced to use because of the limitations of the English language and the 
> primitiveness of science during her time? Today, however, with the advent 
and 
> progressive development of modern and post modern physics and cosmology, 
its a 
> whole new ball game. I'm not much interested in trying to explain 
theosophical 
> metaphysics to those theosophists who can read the SD and find it out for 
> themselves -- except in terms that can help them transmit this knowledge in 
> the "language of this age" to the non theosophically educated masses. Isn't 
that the 
> whole purpose of revealing this teaching to the modern world? 
> 
> [SL] Also, the broad concept of Akasa says that it is all that there is 
> in terms of "field", although it contains elements of more and more 
> material "weight" as this field is inhabited by thinking beings who 
> therefore, populate that field with a predominance of materially 
> oriented thought. It is this predominant egocentricity which 
> determines the density of what we call Astral, by attracting 
> appropriately "weighty" elementals, which is really the "lower" 
> Akasa. The Buddhi, as it exists as a "seventh" (called the sixth 
> Universal principle) of great nature, is as much Akasa as is the 
> Human Buddhi. IN this sense all of the principles are really an 
> aggregate of Akasa or Muliprakriti (Root Cosmic Substance), and it is 
> animated or inflated by Purusha (The Great Breath), which is really 
> Atman, even as it permeates each incarnation as Consciousness, using 
> the Akasa as appropriate vehicle. (Again, whose density is determined 
> by either the lack of or existence of egoity). 
> 
> I think the article postulates a "measurement" of egoity by the 
> number of "gyrons" which I think is his way of naming, what in 
> Theosophy, are called the elementals.
> 
> [LM] I think you are stretching these "gyrons" far past their scientific 
> reality. They start, like all of modern material science, at the beginning 
of the 
> so called "Big Bang" -- which is the visible and metric "appearance" of 
this 
> physical universe, and makes no mention of the Big bangs on the higher 
planes 
> as they first awakened in their own higher order spheres of hyperspace. 
> Thus, while the "gyrons" may relate to the advanced physics based on scien
tific 
> materialism, they have no validity insofar as explaining the nature or 
origin of 
> consciousness and its relationship to the fields of matter that constitute 
> the spiritual, mental, astral and physical "bodies" of either the Dhyan 
Chohans 
> or the elementals -- not to mention all the "beings" between and beyond 
them. 
> IMO, to stretch these physical gyrons to comprehend the nature of egoity of 
> all the descending beings is going a bit too far. 
> 
> Egoity, on the other hand, from a theosophical POV, is rooted in the 
> reflected and fundamentally "empty" zero-points themselves, and not in 
their 
> surrounding spinergy or abstract motion (momentum) that gave birth to all 
these 
> descending and ascending "fields of consciousness." On the higher planes 
of reality, 
> both Solar and Universal, these "empty" zero-points represent the "selves" 
of 
> the Dhyan Chohans or the Solar Pitris. On the lower planes of planetary 
> life, they represent the Lunar Pitris, and ultimately, the self in each 
human 
> being, as well as the "individuality" or point of potential consciousness 
within 
> each lower being, down to the smallest quantum particle, as well as the 
> "elementals"... All of whose superficial actions are reflected in the next 
higher 
> astral fields and eventually down (or up) to the Akasha -- that, as 
vibrational 
> patterns within (or on) their (non substantial) "spinergy," carries the 
eternal 
> record -- which, as "information," is not related to any particular 
> phenomenal field in their fundamental (substantial) structures... Except, 
in that these 
> "structures" or membranes of primal force coenergetically "carry" or 
modulate 
> those informational patterns as they transfer from one field to the other 
-- 
> with the zero-point "spinergy" of the spiritual field being the "carrier" 
of 
> the final eternal Akashic record. This conforms analogously with all the 
laws 
> of electricity, even down to the way radio waves "carry" the informational 
> modulations of our TV shows and our cell phones. So, there's nothing 
mysterious 
> in all that. 
> 
> In essence, this Akashic field of more or less eternal memory of the 
actions 
> or experiences occurring on any field surface or plane, can only be stored 
in 
> the "spinergy" at the zero-point center of origination of each field -- 
that, 
> in turn, reflects back to the primal zero-point-instant (the "ultimate 
> division of time" on the spiritual plane) they all originated from. As 
above, so 
> below. To see it this way, in the only way that theosophy will ever be 
able to 
> become scientifically valid in the eyes of ordinary people. And, by so 
> understanding, eliminate its "mysticism" engendered by the theosophical 
jargon that 
> prevents them from comprehending the scientific basis of karma and 
reincarnation, 
> or the universality of the fundamental laws of cycles and periodicity upon 
> which these "processes" and all the laws of nature are based upon.
> 
> Hope this covers it,
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon