Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00473)

Mmmmh, Bart, I guess that what she wants to say is that in the occult sense
the occult is more than occult.

William Q. Judge, tulku to HPB:. and wearer of HPB's true occult ring in the
Tibetan transmission line, wrote a valueable article about that topic "Which
is vague: Theosophy or Science?"
http://www.blavatsky.net/theosophy/judge/articles/which-is-vague-theosophy-or-science.htm

Many Occult axioms have been proofed true and accepted. Gottfried de
Purucker, tulku to HPB:. and wearer of HPB's true occult ring in the
Tibetan transmission line, has listed some of them
(from a lecture c. 70 years ago; many more recent proofs could be added:
Schauberger, Tesla, Sheldrake etc.):

-------------------------------------------
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/man-evol/mie-2.htm


It is interesting to watch the progress of modern science and see how
closely it is approaching to certain truths clearly enunciated or plainly
hinted at in the theosophical philosophy. Let me enumerate some of these:

a.. 1. That simple materialism, comprising fortuity, chance, and dead
matter, as producing life and consciousness, and as an explanation of life
and being, is unscientific, unphilosophical, and impossible because contrary
to nature and reason.

b.. 2. That other planets are inhabited by intelligent beings, or are not
so inhabited, as the case may be; a fact that has been generally denied by
astronomers, not from knowledge but from ignorance of any such planets --
the only planet that we do know, our earth, producing living and intelligent
beings. A complete denial, therefore, is irrational, purely speculative and
theoretical, and based solely on supposedly true facts concerning
atmosphere, cold or heat, etc., as these are known on our planet only. There
have always been, however, eminent astronomers who on the ground both of
intuition and scientific probability have not only privately admitted the
probable existence of other planets elsewhere which in all likelihood are
inhabited as ours is, but have even courageously written of their belief.

c.. 3. The unreal nature of the physical universe or sphere; i.e., that
all that we see and know with sense perceptions is its purely phenomenal
appearance.
This statement, in its philosophical, scientific, and religious reaches, is
more or less accepted by the greatest men of science today, at least in
principle.

It should be remembered, however, that when we speak of the "unreal nature"
of the physical universe, we do not mean that the physical universe does not
exist. We mean first, that our understanding of it is unreal, because we do
not know it in its essence; and also that considered in its phenomenal
aspects it is not a fundamental reality, because it is temporal, changing --
effectual, not causal.

a.. 4. That force is etherealized matter; or, preferably, that matter is
equilibrated or crystallized forces.
These last two items have now been fully admitted by philosophical
scientific thinkers and researchers.

a.. 5. That electricity and magnetism, twins, are particular, i.e.,
corpuscular, formed of particles or corpuscles, and therefore are matter.
They are the phenomenal effects of noumenal causes -- ethereal matter or
rather ethereal matters.
Modern science has not yet come to the point where it is willing to
acknowledge that magnetism, the alter ego of electricity, is particular or
corpuscular, as it now admits electricity is.

a.. 6. That the so-called modes of motion, formerly considered as a
definition of forces, was a vain and superficial effort to explain forces
and energy by ticketing them in a new manner, which explained nothing at
all; all forces, in fact, being simply moving and ethereal matters, or vice
versa.

b.. 7. That all matter is radiant, radioactive, that is, it radiates --
some forms or states of matter more than others. Note in this connection the
work and discoveries of Becquerel, Roentgen, the Curies, Rutherford and
Soddy, and the work on similar lines of other great men in other countries.

c.. 8. That light is corpuscular (as well as wavelike, adds science)
because it is a matter, a substance. Light is a material radiance, in fact.

d.. 9. That the transmutation of matters, hence of metals, is a fact in
nature, occurring hourly, momently, instantly; and continuously throughout
time.

e.. 10. That the atom is a divisible body -- i.e., the chemical or
physical atom; it is, so to say, merely a smaller molecule.

f.. 11. That there is a close analogical resemblance between the
operations of the forces and matters working in an atom and those in a solar
system; and that each atomic system is in its turn composed of physical
infinitesimals or of sub-atoms, or of infra-atoms -- called electrons and
protons, etc., by science.

g.. 12. That the nebular hypothesis as commonly accepted formerly was
incomplete, insufficient as a workable hypothesis, although containing
certain elements of truth.

h.. 13. That the sun is neither burning nor even hot in the ordinary sense
(nor is it cold), although it is glowing in one sense, superficially; nor
does it recuperate its heat, such as it is, and light and other forces as
formerly described by astronomers; nor by mere shrinkage of volume, nor by
the impact of falling meteors; nor do even the theories of atomic
disintegration fully account for its vast and ceaseless expenditure of
energy.
Much of this is now practically admitted by the scientists, at least in
principle. All of it would be fully admitted were there some alternative
explanation that they could accept. This they have not yet discovered or
evolved from their understanding of the facts before them.

a.. 14. That storms -- rain, hail, snow, wind -- and droughts, likewise
most of the earth's heat, are not wholly caused by or derived directly from
solar energy, but result from electromagnetic interplay of forces between
the earth's mass and the "meteoric masses," or "veil" above our
atmosphere -- such phenomena or effects being accompanied partly causally,
partly effectually, by periodic expansion or dilation of the atmospheric
body, and by periodic contractions thereof; and that the glacial periods of
geology, so called, are largely due to the same cause or causes.
b.. 15 and last. That Darwinism and Haeckelism are inadequate to explain
and account for the mass of biological phenomena, from the evolutionary
point of view; and that Darwin's, Haeckel's, Huxley's and Spencer's "natural
selection" and "survival of the fittest" are not other than secondary or
minor operations of nature, at the very best; that "transformism" as taught
by the speculative scientists is not evolution, and is both uncertain as a
theory, because purely speculative, and really unscientific likewise because
based on data too few. It is therefore both incomplete and insufficient.
Other chapters will indicate to what a large extent scientists have moved in
the direction of theosophy.
--------------------------

OTOH, many of most accepted "scientific" beliefs have never been proofed:
The missing link for Darwinism and Transformatism is still missing and will
forever, how the "Astronauts" have crossed the Van Allen Belts is still
unexplained, etc., etc.

That are SOME of the reasons why I for myself, when I stood at the
cross-road, decide to study the Ancient Wisdom in favor of scientic mayas.
Frank



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bart Lidofsky" <bartl@sprynet.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World A challenge to theosophists.


silva_cass wrote:
> The scientific view of the world is diometrically opposed to the
> occult
> worldview (here the Theosophist). Science is about empirically
> verified
> facts, tested and varified by numerous individuals. The occult
> method is
> spouting words, quoting some ancient mystics whose musings can't be
> verified. They must be accepted on their authority.

So, I take it that you are using the occult method in formulating your
opinions?

Bart





Yahoo! Groups Links