Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00230)

Thank you :)

I found the definition in Alexandra David-Neel's book, "The Secret
Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects".

That's part of what I like about this site (rants about navigation
aside) is that there are numerous folk to learn from.

Thanks all.

Joe


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Augoeides-222@... wrote:
>
> Kunji Namparshespa?
> 
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
> From: "Joseph P. Fulton" <jpfulton314@...> 
> Again, extending the apologies to M. Sufilight to you and Morten.
> 
> I'm reminded of the horrified response of John Maynard Keynes when he
> opened the chest of Newton's writings that he purchased at auction. 
> He was expecting scientific treatises, and he got alchemy!
> 
> One of the "salients" in Western materialistic thought is the very
> notion of "matter" itself. Since Einstein proved with the equation
> E=MC2 (sorry, no superscript) that matter and energy are convertible,
> the whole paradigm has been on a slippery slope. The major question
> which needs answered now is the one of consciousness. Science is
> heading closer towards the boundaries of matter and consciousness by
> becoming better able to see the links. It will be interesting for all
> of us to see what they find. Perhaps none of us will like the answer.
> 
> Joe
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't read Dawkins but wouldn't mind a brief synopsis of this
> theory. However, found this in my archives which may stimulate debate
> > Cass
> > A CRITIQUE OF WESTERN SCIENCE
> > The technological triumphs of science over the past 300 years - of
> which Newtonian Physics is considered the foundation - provided strong
> support for the concept that the universe was entirely a physical
> phenomenon associated with the concepts of Philosophical Materialism. 1
> > Ironically, this is not a position embraced by Newton himself. For
> him the creation of the Universe was inconceivable without divine
> intervention of a superior intelligence or Creator. Newton believed
> God created the universe as a system governed by mechanical laws and
> once it had been created, it could be studied and understood as such.
> > "However, whilst Newton's followers kept the image of the universe
> as a deterministic super machine, they disposed of the notion of an
> overlighting intelligent creative principle as an unnecessary and
> embarrassing leftover from the 'irrational' dark ages. Sensory data
> about material reality ('objective' data) became the only permissible
> source of information in all branches of science." (Stanislav Grof) 2
> > The concept that the universe was essentially a 'material' system
> operating under the laws of Newtonian Mechanics reflected the basic
> metaphysical assumption of Philosophical Materialism and, because it
> seemed to describe so well much of what has been observed about the
> Universe, it came to dominate entirely the thinking in all disciplines
> of science including biology, medicine, psychology, psychiatry etc.
> From the perspective of philosophical materialism, 'matter' is the
> elemental stuff comprising the universe and logically the scientific
> discipline concerned with the study of 'matter' - namely physics -
> became the pre-eminent scientific discipline to which all other
> disciplines were subordinate. 3
> > "The determined application of this logic ensured that the findings
> of other disciplines were not allowed to be in conflict with the basic
> theories of physics, resulting in the systematic suppression or
> misinterpretation of findings in many fields that could not be brought
> into consonance with the materialistic worldview." (Stanislav Grof )4
> > As Grof quite rightly states:
> > "This strategy was a serious violation of the basic principles of
> science. Strictly speaking, scientific theories apply only to the
> observations on which they are based and they cannot be automatically
> extrapolated to other disciplines. Thus for example, theories about
> the human psyche should be based on observations of psychological
> processes, not on the theories that physicists have made about the
> material world. ... The criterion for the validity of scientific
> findings and concepts in a certain area should be based on the rigour
> of the scientific method with which they were obtained and not on the
> compatibility with the theories of another field " (Grof) 5
> > Exacerbating this situation has been the tendency of many scientists
> to adhere - without questioning - to outdated theories taught to them
> by their mentors and peers and then mistake them for being accurate
> and definitive descriptions of reality.
> > This distortion of the scientific principle has become so entrenched
> within contemporary Western Culture - that any new evidence suggesting
> that the basic paradigm underlying the contemporary scientific
> understanding of reality may be flawed - is routinely dismissed
> without proper investigation. No other better example of this sort of
> behaviour can be found than with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.Thus,
> despite the lack of any empirical evidence in support of it, and the
> growing list of seemingly insurmountable technical 'problems'
> associated with the finer details of the theory, Darwinists continue
> to argue that the mutation - selection mechanism associated with the
> theory must have produced the changes required for the evolution of
> new life forms - not because the mechanism has been observed to work
> or that there is some irrefutable scientific proof of the same - but
> rather because their guiding philosophy assures them that in the
> absence of an
> > overlighting 'Creative Principle', no other means is available to
> do the job. In other words, the theory must be right because in their
> eyes, there is no alternative! 6
> > In a sense the scientific community has forgotten its purpose
> (raison d'etre) and the underlying ethic pertaining to that purpose.
> > True scientific procedure calls for keeping an open mind to all
> phenomena whilst maintaining a questioning attitude at the same time
> and being prepared to modify or dispose of any theory that no longer
> accommodates evidence collected in a systematic manner.7
> > Today most academics professing to be scientists do not observe this
> process - but rather display anuncriticaladherence to a materialistic
> philosophy taught them by their peers and superiors and because of
> this, they tend to ignore or treat as 'unreal' phenomena that do not
> fit into the orthodox paradigm of reality. 8
> > This process has resulted in contemporary science becoming ensnared
> in a very limited view of reality and the nature of the universe. This
> position is summed up succinctly by Cornell University professor,
> William Provine, who said:
> > "... modern science directly implies that the world is organised
> strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no
> purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no
> designing forces that are rationally detectable ..."9
> > Now of course, Professor Provine's position is a philosophical one
> and is not based on anyempirical evidence and as such is a breach of
> the very principles underlying scientific technique. Professor Provine
> is entitled to hold and express any philosophical position he so
> chooses, but he isnotentitled to imply the philosophical position
> expressed above is somehow based on scientific methodology because
> "science it ain't". 10
> > By defining and adhering to such a proscriptive interpretation of
> reality, contemporary 'science' is denying itself the opportunity to
> contribute to an extraordinary new chapter in human understanding as
> to the nature of reality and who we are.
> > Professor Provine's inability to distinguish between 'science' and
> 'philosophy' is very destructive of true scientific endeavour because
> his views as a senior respected scientist clearly affects the thinking
> of those who look up to him as their superior. Most scientists, like
> the general public, acquire the vast majority of their knowledge and
> values on what they are taught by their peers and mentors, and not on
> what they personally experience. It is for this reason that Professor
> Provine's views are so prevalent within the scientific community and
> why so many aspects of science have become moribund.
> > So how will Western Science deal with the plethora of 'New Age'
> phenomena now being discovered? 11
> > If history is anything to go by, the contemporary scientific
> community will almost certainly embrace an orthodox position and
> embark on a concerted campaign of trenchant denial about 'New Age'
> phenomena. However, this is not such a bad thing, as practically all
> the major advances in human knowledge and understanding have emanated
> from the minds of dissenters who have rejected the orthodox position
> of their contemporaries and postulated what were considered heresies
> at the time. Presumably, the issues pertaining to the plethora of 'New
> Age' phenomena now being discovered (and their wider implications)
> will be treated no differently from any new 'heresy'. As with all
> matters, eventually the truth will become recognised as "self evident"
> and future generations will look back at the position of contemporary
> orthodox science in much the same way we now view our ancestors who
> fervently believed the earth was flat! 12
> > ___________________
> > NOTE: Article based in part on extracts from:
> > * 'The Cosmic Game' by Stanislav Grof (p232 - p235)
> > * 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip Johnson (p126)
> > Â 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@>
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 6 January, 2009 4:16:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Joseph
> > 
> > My views are:
> > 
> > Yes. But Dawkins is accepting too much (dualism) and rejecting too
> little as far as I read him.
> > Some info:
> > http://www.sirbacon .org/links/ dawkins.html and http://www.fbrt.
> org.uk/pages/ essays/frameset- essays.html
> > 
> > But I honestly find http://www.sirbacon .org a quite interesting
> website.
> > 
> > Shakespeare and Sufism.
> > http://www.sirbacon .org/mshrew. htm 
> > It places the Gurdjieff - Sarmoung Brotherhood in Usbekistan at
> Bokhara: http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Bukhara
> > 
> > -------
> > 
> > You did not answer my previous e-mails questions, especially not
> this one:
> > And I keep hearing you agree upon that Alice A. Bailey is political
> and not non-political as H. P. Blavatsky and Morya was. Is that true?
> > 
> > So your silence to this question tells me you do not know the answer.
> > 
> > M. Sufilight
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: Joseph P. Fulton 
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
> > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:29 AM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
> > 
> > Morten and Cass,
> > 
> > Thank you very much for your interest. The names mentioned above are
> > there to represent an entire point of view, namely the "rational
> > materialist" point of view which makes up the prevailing opinion of
> > our culture. I hope that clarifies things a bit. Richard Dawkins is
> > a prime target, in this case. He forms a great deal of opinion in the
> > field of religious studies and evolutionary biology.
> > 
> > Joe
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
> > <global-theosophy@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear friends and Zaitzev
> > > 
> > > My views are:
> > > I will certainly not quote all the Alice A. Bailey book in an e-mail
> > to prove you wrong.
> > > Just have a look at the online editions. There are no words about
> > them being "first editions".
> > > It is you who need to prove it to be otherwise by quoting, what I
> > tell you is not there to be found.
> > > 
> > > Even "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" have had added several footnotes in
> > various translations and as far as I hear from others also in the
> > online editions.
> > > 
> > > But why not add, what edition Problems of Humanity is? Why hide it?
> > > And I keep hearing you agree upon that Alice A. Bailey is political
> > and not non-political as H. P. Blavatsky and Morya was. Is that true?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > M. Sufilight
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: Konstantin Zaitzev 
> > > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:50 PM
> > > Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
> > > <global-theosophy@ > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > And ALL of them First editions? I doubt that! 
> > > > It is for instance - as far as I am aware - not written anywhere
> > > online, that the book "Problems of Humanity" have seen several
> > editions..
> > > 
> > > Doubt isn't enough. Prove that. Some of the books, at least,
look like
> > > facsimile copies with old typeface, for example "Treatise on cosmic
> > > fire". Though I admit that such books as "Problems of Humanity"
could
> > > be updated as they deal with politics.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter
> inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
> 
>  
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>