RE: Blavatsky Net Newsletter November 1, 2005
Nov 08, 2005 04:33 PM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck
11/8/2005 4:12 PM
Thanks Reed for
Blavatsky Net NEWSLETTER November 1, 2005
I enjoyed it.
Discussion about INTELLIGENT DESIGN or CREATIONISM is valuable to get people
to thinking about causes.
The questions: WHY ? WHO ? Who is involved? Am I affected ?
Is there LAW absolute and rigid for the entire UNIVERSE?
[What else causes its organization ?]
Are we "free" or not ? Or only partially free ?
[Are mind-equipped beings developed by circumstances or are they
"endowed with MINDS" (as THEOSOPHY says) -- by the Dhyan Chohans (who are
themselves !) -- and if so.
Where does this "gift" truly originate ?
Is it one of the indefinables? -- A part (?) of the ABSOLUTE --
the THREE IN ONE ?
But everything is included in the ABSOLUTE !
So why this endless churning?
Is it for the development of a SPIRITUAL SENSITIVITY in the MONADS ?
Can we say we (humans), are each an advanced Monad and in our own progress,
we play host and tutor to many others [ monads] who have less experience?
I don't think our "lower manas" can analyse or define some of these points.
If so where do they originate ? So do we not reach out to the HIGHER MANAS
and to BUDDHI ? I think THEOSOPHY explains this.
So the quest goes ever on.
PS DARWINISM was proved faulty even in HPB's time. Its in the SECRET
In the SECRET DOCTRINE
DARWINISM See also Evolution
S D II 87-8, 185-90, 645-90.
acquired faculties of, denied I 219
antiquity of man & II 685-9
ape origins in II 680-9
begins after astral evolution II 649
beyond, is the Unutterable II 190
Bree on fallacies of II 696, 727-8, 729
contradictory II 688
Crookes on I 585
demands great age for man II 686, 729
deserted by many II 647, 711
embryology & II 255-63
Hanoverian [Wiegand] disagrees w I 185n
inadequate but forced on us II 645
insufficient re heredity I 223n
language & II 662
Mivart's critique of II 696-7
Muller attacks II 721-2
natural selection & II 647-8
objections to II 717, 723-4n
occultism &, contrasted I 186-7, 219; II 87, 185, 190, 684
only part of evolution I 600; II 649
physicalization of root types & II 649
polygeneticists opposed II 169
principles on cosmic level I 201-3
de Quatrefages on II 56n, 87n, 315n, 645, 687-8n
Schmidt on II 667n, 734n
secondary laws partly true II 662
Spencer's view on II 730
starts at an open door II 190
theory begins at midpoint II 153
Quatrefages de Breau, Jean L. A. de
an agnostic II 645
gave blow to Darwinism II 56n, 681
man-ape likeness exaggerated II 87n
monogenesis of, criticized II 195-6
reservations of, about Darwinism II 662
right in his own way II 426
scientific fallacies I 487
theosophists respect II 651
unbiased, honest, earnest II 645
upsets Darwinism II 654, 711
----- Les cranes des races humaines . . .
Canstadt & Engis men human II 744
----- Histoire generale des races . . .
apes likely descend fr man II 287-8
fallacy of evolutionists II 681
man helpless without mind II 56n
man lived before mammals II 155
----- The Human Species
apes fr man II 682, 687n
Cro-Magnon & Guanches II 678n, 740, 790n
descent of Aryans, Semites II 426
disposes of Haeckel's man-ape II 745n
on Haeckel's prosimiae II 649-50, 668-9
life rules inanimate forces I 540, 603
man in Miocene & earlier II 746
man in Secondary Age II 10, 157, 219, 288, 686, 687n, 714n
milieux or environment II 736
new races come fr crossings II 444
Quaternary man intelligent II 749
q Naudin on first man II 119-20
race extinction II 780
rapid & gradual evolutionists II 646 &n
why man not fr apes II 646 &n, 666-7
See also Environment, Heredity,
Natural Selection, Specialization
fr amoeba to man theory II 259
analogy, law of, & II 66
ancients knew physical & spiritual I 332
ascending & descending arcs of II 180-1
ascending arc of, we are now on I 641
astral merges into physical II 257, 736
of atoms I 522
begun by intellectual Logos I 137n
Berosus on teaching of II 190
of body terrestrial I 175
changes on globe D, fourth round I 176-7
criticism of scientific II 164-5n, 185
cyclic I 416, 634-47; II 298, 420, 443, 732-3
Darwinian, & reversion to type II 293n
Darwinian, in cosmos I 202
Darwinism not supported by occultism I 186-7, 191, 211; II 653
Darwinism only part of I 600; II 153, 649
definition of I 620; II 653
different rates of II 256
divine, of ideas I 280
double, of man II 87, 167
embryo epitomizes racial II 187, 659
endless adaptations of I 277
eternal cycle of becoming II 170
of eyes II 299 &n, 302
fallen angels & human II 274
five esoteric axioms re II 697-8
Fohat & cosmic I 110
gigantic flora, fauna, men II 276
fr gigantic to small II 153-4
gradual, works by uniform laws II 731
guided by intelligence (Wallace) I 107
guided by unseen hands I 278
Haeckel defines II 164-5n
higher beings used in II 87-8
human-spiritual to divine-spiritual I 224
human, traced on walls & in heaven II 352
& Idealists (Spencer) II 490n
of individualization I 178-9
infinitesimal chance variations II 697
inherent law of development II 260
intellectual, w physical II 411
intelligence cause of II 649 &n
intelligent beings adjust, control I 22
internal laws in, (Mivart) II 697
involution & I 416; II 294
Isis Unveiled q on I 332; II xvi
Kabbala, only hinted at in II 241
kosmic, in geometric figures I 321
of man & ape discussed II 675-85
man masterpiece of II 475, 728
man's, difficult to trace II 152
monad & personal self compel II 109-10
natural forces working blindly (Darwin) I 139; II 652
nature's progress to higher life I 277
never-ceasing ever becoming II 545
no, for the perfect II 243
not all due to natural selection II 728
not applied to primary "Creation" I 446
not creation, by means of WORDS II 42
occult doctrine of II 241, 261-3, 731-4
paganism taught dual I 464
pain & suffering necessary to II 475
of perception fr apperception I 175, 179
physical evolves fr spiritual I 219
planetary life-impulses & II 697
pre-human monsters, etc & II 634-5
primary, secondary causes in II 648-9
proceeded unaided (Temple) II 645
proceeds on many levels II 87
of progenitors as gods, then men II 349
Puranas on I 451-60; II 253
of races, series of rises & falls II 721
repetitive I 232; II 256
saltations in II 696-7
scientific II 189, 347-8
second round, different I 159-60
senses, of outer vs inner I 446-7; II 294
septenary, discussed I 267-8; II 622-3n
sexual, gradual II 84
fr simple to complex II 299, 731
simultaneous, of seven groups II 1-2
soul's influence on, (Rolleston) II 728
specialization II 720
of spirit into matter II 273
spiritual & physical I 641; II 348, 421
spiritual, of inner, real man I 175, 634; II 728
stages in, of man II 132-3, 173-4
Stanzas as formula of I 20-1
swastika symbolizes II 98
of third eye II 302
three propositions re II 1, 168
triple scheme of I 181, 341; II 109
Uranos, Kronos, Jupiter & II 268-71
young subject (Wilson) II 152
(Curtesey of THEOSOPHICAL UNIVERSITY PRESS )
From: Reed Carson [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 2:54 PM
Subject: Blavatsky Net Newsletter November 1, 2005
You are receiving this monthly newsletter as a feature of Blavatsky Net
that you joined as "dalval" on 12/09/00 at www.blavatsky.net.
To unsubscribe see below.
Dear Member of Blavatsky Net,
One day many years ago I visited a local coffee shop for lunch in a
small town known mostly for lending its name to an exit on the New
York State Turnpike. What made that day memorable for me was one
sentence from me in the ensuing conversation and the one sentence
response from a stranger.
I positioned myself on the stool at the lunch counter next to
another patron that I had seen at that coffee shop every time I had
been there. Thought I would make his acquaintance. I guess I am
not good at small talk. One of my conversational gambits was "I
don't believe in Darwinism". He responded with alarm "What! You
believe in Jesus?"
The chagrin I felt then, I feel still today. Maybe I believed in
Vishnu. Maybe I was an agnostic. While I have deep respect for
Christians, he had lumped me in with a belief system with very
problematic metaphysics - with which I disagree - a system with
mangled texts from its early history, with political decisions
determining its beliefs and with required devotion to an external
representative of the deity, contrary to the mystic traditions
of the world.
And, as asserted, the alternative, Darwinism is simply wrong. The
preceding newsletters amply demonstrate the problem. Notes at the
end of this newsletter give more sources for pursuing that
For those like myself who also deeply appreciate science and
scientists, the approach of Darwinists to the emerging issue of
intelligent design, (ID), is an abandonment of the principles of
science. Darwinists are failing to go where the evidence leads.
That is wholly unscientific. They declare as "supernatural" -
and therefore a priori false - all those propositions that do not
fit their preconceived materialistic assumptions. But the world
around us has much evidence of realities beyond that of matter
and the energy of physics. As a result, mainstream science shuts
its eyes in denial and acts as the religion of materialism.
Mainstream science today bases its conclusions ultimately upon
an axiom of faith.
Moreover, many people today formulate the conflict of Darwinism
versus ID as an either/or issue. And this is the key. It isn't
so. Instead, there is a distinct third alternative. That
alternative is the knowledge of the wisdom tradition. The
evidence in the Darwinism/ID debate confirms the specific
relevant assertions of that ancient knowledge. So it is the
purpose of this newsletter to explain how there could possibly
be a third alternative, what that third alternative is, how the
evidence confirms it, and to offer suggestions for more study to
determine truth for yourself.
In the process this has become much longer than a newsletter.
My apology is that the attempt here is to assemble together the
many and various ideas of the ancient wisdom as presented by
Madame Helena Blavatsky and show in detail how they apply and
how they differentiate the third alternative from either science
or religion as commonly understood in the current debate. The
overview of this issue is no longer sufficient. The debate is
very serious. This letter contains detail along with the overview.
Meanwhile the debate in the real world intensifies as people take
their positions. The interim president of Cornell University,
Hunter Rawlings III, felt it incumbent upon him to announce that
he was against the teaching of intelligent design in the science
UPI says "John West, a fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle
-- a leader in the intelligent design movement -- told the Times
he's concerned Rawlings is "fanning the flames of intolerance."
But Rawlings was outdone by the faculty at Lehigh University.
Lehigh is the home of Michael Behe, the author of "Darwin's Black
box", an influential seminal book describing how the modern
molecular evidence not available to Darwin now points very
strongly to the conclusion that at least some life forms reveal
intelligent design. So the faculty at that university recently
felt compelled to collectively declare that they are materialists
and do not support the views of Behe. They do so on their web
site. They assert they are materialists in order to preserve
and protect the reputation of their university as they perceive it.
But Rawlings and the faculty of Lehigh are far outdone by the
scientists of Australia. In Australia, 70,000 scientists have
lent their names to a document in support of Darwinism and
I take much hope from all this - particularly from the 70,000
scientists of Australia. It means the issue is alive, well,
and knowledge is growing amongst the people. 70,000
scientists would not join in that effort unless the issues
have greatly intensified and their religion of materialism
been seriously threatened.
The evidence of activity on the other side is interesting.
One hint that seemed especially relevant to me occurred at the
very end of the CD "The Triumph of Design and the Demise of
Darwin" featuring Philip Johnson, author of "Darwin on Trial".
His book is an extremely rational and persuasive book that has
helped lead the way in informing the people on this issue. At
the end of the CD Johnson says that according to information
he receives, students are now confronting their teachers with
information. In class they raise questions and dispute the
"information" being dispensed. That is portentous.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application