Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00024)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@k...> 
wrote:
> I'm going to do something in this post that I almost never do: get
> modern science to corroborate theosophy.

Yes, the thesis in the SD is similar to, but not identical with, the 
nebular hypothesis. The main difference is, the nebular hypothesis 
is purely mechanical. No Mahat, no Parabrahm, etc. SD students can 
benefit from reading about the nebular hypothesis and then rereading 
the SD.

> First of all ? I wasn't aware that HPB claimed the whole universe 
was
> a materialisation, but now that you mention it ? I guess she 
does. :)

The solar system. She says the origin of the Kosmos (which is what 
she calls the rest of the universe) remains a mystery.

> Second: modern science teaches ? and it is taught in high school 
these
> days ? that matter can be converted into light?energy

That's news to me. When I was in college we had to take a course in 
quantum mechanics and were told the valence electrons of atoms could 
have their energy level raised. Then when they returned to the lower 
energy state they would give up an integer number of "quanta" of 
energy, which would be turned into photons (packets of light 
energy.) This phenomenon is used in all sorts of electronic 
devices. The visible effect of lightning is ionization of the air. 
The electricity itself is not visible.

> So 'once upon a time' it is reasonable to suppose
> that the process went the other way: light turned into matter...

Yes, that is possible. The nebular hypothesis asserts the solar 
system was once a vast cloud which slowly condensed into a sun and an 
as yet indeterminate number of planets. Add intelligent direction to 
this and it is the same thing as atoms condensing into 
a "materialization."

> Blavatsky went one step further of course ? light itself would be 
seen
> as a materialisation of some 'higher' level... and so on and so 
forth.

My understanding of her thesis was that there is one "force" which 
manifests to our consciousness in seven different ways. Also that 
matter and spirit are co eternal, meaning neither was ever created. 
Spirit according to her therefore affects, but does not create, 
matter. The two come together in consciousness to produce a 
phenomenon (i.e., a conscious experience using the word the way it is 
used in philosophy), though, which phenomenon is in a ssnse "created."

> Anyhow, wait for proof and you will be waiting till the end of time
> (and that will never come).

I have come to suspect Daniel is right. There is no way to set up 
a "materialization" which cannot be challenged by some ingenious 
person like Bart Lidofsky.

Incidentally, the end of time is scheduled for Friday of next week 
(not tomorrow but the next Friday.) So get busy and tie up any loose 
ends in case there is no last minute postponement.