Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00272)

Dear Joe and friends


My views are:

Joe wrote:
"Honestly, and depending on how you look at it, HPB's mission was very
political, especially in regards to Indian Independence.  From the
viewpoint of Paul Johnson's book "The Masters Revealed", HPB's mission
in India, and the identity of the Mahatmas, themselves was political
in the extreme. "


My views:
Can we have one or more quotes showing whether this statement of yours is true or not?
Because so far I disagree with you about this issue. So far.



M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joseph P. Fulton 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 5:31 AM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?


  > 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.

  So, my silence was a bit loud on that one, but not in the direction
  you suppose. I have a lot of posts to reply to and I apologize for
  the lack of etiquette in that regards (this goes for you, too Morten).
  Not sufficient, but honest. 

  Also, is it just me, or is the format of these Yahoo groups hostile to
  ease of use? When attempting to reply to something a lot of needless
  effort is spent going back to the beginning of the digest and going
  back down to the specific comment. OK, rant over with!

  Honestly, and depending on how you look at it, HPB's mission was very
  political, especially in regards to Indian Independence. From the
  viewpoint of Paul Johnson's book "The Masters Revealed", HPB's mission
  in India, and the identity of the Mahatmas, themselves was political
  in the extreme. 

  The thing that turns me off about Bailey is that she makes all of
  these grand pronouncements and mixes up doctrines and spews Christian
  rant out of the mouth of Buddhists, and notably from personages who
  have made their opposition to such teaching clear in their writings. 
  If they can't have any rational integrity on that count, what can they
  on any other? For all I know she could make the next Dalai Lama an
  incarnation of Jerry Falwell.

  I

  --- 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]