Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00622)

I though some of you might interested in this recent dialogue between a 
scientific theosophist and a Hindu scientist.   let me know if you are interested 
in the original letter explaining the scientific basis of theosophy to that 
scientist -- and I'll send it to you.   Lenny

> Dear Richard,
> 
> I appreciate your response to my letter (although it didn't speak to the 
> theory in question or answer any of my conclusions) and, therefore, I understand 
> your position as a believer in a particular religious philosophy to the 
> exclusion of any other conflicting philosophy.  
> 
> In the case of Hinduism, I agree that it is not entirely theosophical -- 
> although it has in its Vedas a close resemblance to it.  The only difference I 
> can see being in its dogmas -- such as the reverse evolution implied by its 
> idea of human reincarnation into animals -- that, from a theosophical point of 
> view, has no metaphysical or scientific basis.  Theosophy claims that 
> physical evolution always proceeds in a forward direction, and while a human ego may 
> become incarnated with an animal like nature based on how it lived its 
> previous life, it will still be in a human body capable of experiencing the karma 
> of such actions, as a thinking consciousness who might recognize and repent 
> its self destructive ways, turn back on the straight and narrow path, and 
> change its karma. Vide, all the human animals in prisons throughout the world, 
> some of whom make such a transition.  Perhaps this argument is one of the 
> reasons why the Theosophical Society broke off from its early association with the 
> Advaitin Arya Samaj in India.  (Although it could have been a clash of 
> personalities or philosophies between the leaders of each group.) 
> 
> Incidentally, my vipassana yoga teacher, Swami Suresh Chander, who lived 
> with me for three years when he arrived in the US from Darmasala, was a Guru of 
> the Arya Samaj.  We had many lively discussions on the differences and 
> similarities between the Advaitan and theosophical teachings -- although there was 
> never anything in the Bhagavad Gita that we could disagree on. :-) 
> 
> As for myself, I am not a "card carrying" theosophist, having never joined 
> any theosophical organization, nor do I subscribe to any religion or their 
> questionable sources of intelligence regarding the nature of reality or its 
> ontology and epistemology.  As most independent theosophists say, "I am a member 
> of no cult or sect, but a member of each and all" ... And that is because, 
> there isn't a religious cult or sect anywhere in the world that doesn't base 
> its theology -- no matter how distorted, anthropomorphized, or mystically 
> supernatural -- on the fundamental principles and Cosmogenesis of theosophy.  I 
> might also say, that regardless of the contrived direction science takes to 
> explain physical phenomena, deep down under, all its laws are based on those 
> same fundamental principles.  In essence, also, they all follow much the same 
> moral-ethical teachings.
> 
> As I see it, the major difference between dogmatic religious thinkers and 
> dogmatic physical scientists, is that they each look at the universe from 
> opposite points of view, one from the single point of consciousness outward and 
> the other from the spread out particles of matter inward, and think that where 
> they stand on the inside or outside is the only fundamental reality or 
> existence.  It's no wonder that they can't talk to each other -- since neither of 
> them can get a handle on the transcendental metaphysical science, in between, 
> that links them both together. :-)
> 
> For example, imagine... How can a stable fundamental unity of all space and 
> its derivatives in matter, not be composed of a duality within a trinity?  An 
> easy fundamental truth when one examines mentally how a 2 dimensional spin 
> of a single point of nothing but motion can expand and involve into a 
> 3-Dimensional sphere inside a multidimensional manifold of infinite extension. 
> Therefore, Buddhists say nothing exists, and Scientists say everything exists.  Can 
> either of them ever think that they might both be right? :-) 
> 
> Also, I am not a "scientist" in the orthodox sense.  But, I have been a 
> serious student of all the sciences since I was mind opened by a major war in my 
> teens that caused me to see the basic flaws in all of man's thinking on both 
> religious and scientific levels... That could only lead to endless warfare 
> between individuals, cults, religions, families, ethnic groups and nations.  
> This got me wondering how their thinking could be corrected so they would all 
> see the world and its underpinnings in the same light.... Thus began my search 
> for the fundamental truth connecting and conjoining nothing with everything, 
> or consciousness with matter.
> 
> Therefore, I consider myself, simply, as an independent philosophical, 
> scientific, and infinitely curious student of fundamental truth -- that once 
> known, and proven to everyone's satisfaction beyond a shadow of a doubt, would 
> merge science, philosophy and religion into one consistent belief that everyone 
> could subscribe to...  Although, I know how difficult that would be, 
> considering how naive perceptions, carnal pleasures and other rewards of the physical 
> world, that feed individual selfishness and greed, blinds them from 
> examining, understanding, or accepting the higher order truths that can prove to 
> them, subjectively, their essential oneness with each other. Theosophists speak 
> of that ideal as "Universal Brotherhood" -- whose nucleus each of us can 
> become through a truer realization the self gained by individual self devised and 
> self determined study and effort. 
> 
> After an education in Chemical Engineering and many years delving into the 
> workings of the practical world in whatever direction would make my living 
> based on my skills as an artist, writer, inventor, producer director, etc., as 
> well as studying the ancient occult mysteries and the comparative roots of all 
> religions, the progress of philosophies and sciences, and, finally, 
> inventing things of an optical nature that led me to a thorough understanding of the 
> mechanisms of visual perception -- I finally saw how it all began in my 
> mind's eye. 
> 
> Accordingly, my Astro-biological coenergetic field theory regarding the 
> origin of the universe and its continued involution and evolution, came into 
> being solely from a careful study of all the ancient occult philosophies and 
> their metaphysics as well as their interrelationship with modern science -- 
> without dependence on any "channeled," revelatory, or scriptural sources, 
> including the direct mouth to ear and word to mind sources that enabled Blavatsky to 
> write as a highly educated expert on comparative religion in "Isis Unveiled," 
> and on the metaphysics and physics of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis in 
> the "Secret Doctrine"... 
> 
> Although much of her writing became part of my study of the occult mysteries 
> -- since in the earlier days of my quest, I was not yet educated enough in 
> modern science to see all the correlation's.  I was constantly amazed, as I 
> studied the secret Doctrine's metaphysics, how close it was to my own intuitive 
> insights, and how I could never find any contradiction with modern physics 
> as Einsten saw it -- while resolving all its conflicts, inconsistencies and 
> paradoxes.  Incidentally, I learned most of my modern physics through the 
> direct teachings of a nuclear physicist who had worked on the Manhattan Project, 
> and had later been initiated as a Lama in Nepal.
> 
> Since the Secret Doctrine, was actually based on the most ancient scripture 
> that is the basis of all subsequent religious philosophies (albeit seriously 
> distorted to suit their hierarchies of powerful crafty priests) -- whether or 
> not Blavatsky got her information through psychic sources (which are quite 
> justified by the scientific metaphysics her writings thoroughly explain) -- 
> all my conclusions are based solely on a comparative study of all the 
> metaphysical literature, in parallel with a thorough in-depth study of all the 
> physical sciences and their interrelationships -- over an extended period of more 
> than 30 years. Unfortunately, much of material science, being based on an 
> opposite view of reality, was in direct contradiction of both theosophy and the 
> ontological conclusions I reached in my ABC theory.
> 
> Naturally, I had to throw out most of the jargon of all those conflicting 
> ideas, including their mathematics (that only confused things further while 
> creating other hierarchies of "insiders" wearing blinders) -- and cobble up 
> whatever I could gleam from the rest of the English language. :-) Unfortunately, 
> Blavatsky had the same problem, which was why she had to produce a glossary 
> based on words from ancient languages, coin new words, and thus make her 
> writing extremely dense and difficult to read or comprehend.
> 
> When I was able to find the direct source of Einstein's so called intuition 
> of E=mc^2, as well as his theories, speculations and inventions of 
> photoelectricity, relativity, wave-particle duality, time as a vector, vectors as 
> tensors, the quantum roots of physical reality, quantum fields, curved space, 
> unified fundamental forces, the nature of gravity, etc., and also the later 
> developments based on these roots, such as quantum field theories, quantum 
> entanglement, string theories, holographic paradigm, plasma physics as well as 
> biological and physiological discoveries leading to breaking the DNA code to a 
> complete description of neurophysiology -- all presaged in the Secret Doctrine 
> -- that was enough for me.  See (and check out some of the SD references on) 
> the following web page:
> http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
> 
> From then on, all I could do was attempt to synthesize the metaphysical 
> basis of all these physical sciences that includes consciousness in the mix as 
> the prime mover, along with the physical sciences themselves, and correlate 
> them all into a consistent theory of ABC that unequivocally proves (through 
> whatever thought experiment one wishes to derive for oneself), logically and 
> consistently, and in conjunction with the most erudite science and mathematics -- 
> that the universe is fundamentally intelligent and, therefore, is its own 
> "creator" or God.
> 
> When I go deeper into this description of the origin and construction of the 
> Universe and trace it down to its smallest particle either from the bottom 
> upward or from the top downward -- I find no inconsistencies, either with 
> fundamental (ancient) theosophy or with the most advanced scientific thought.   
> Much of this advanced science, BTW (as yet unproved -- since much of it is 
> beyond the ken of reductive materialism) is getting closer and closer to my ABC 
> theory -- which is entirely consistent with the theosophically scientific 
> metaphysics as it is thoroughly explained in the Secret Doctrine of H. P. 
> Blavatsky.  The only way anyone can know this is to deeply study that book for 
> oneself... A not very easy job, I might say, since her writing in her second 
> language of English, could not be any less dense than the near infinitely complex 
> subject she was writing about.  Even though, it could be boiled down to a 
> fundamental simplicity, as Einstein always thought was possible.  In my case it 
> took more than ten years for me to finish reading that tome, and fully 
> understand what it was saying underneath its complex linguistics, that requires 
> constant reference to the Theosophical Glossary.
> 
> Incidentally, most of the channeled teachings by those mystics who claim to 
> gain their knowledge from similar sources whom they wrongly think Blavatsky's 
> claimed her knowledge came from -- have never been able to supersede or even 
> comprehend the roots of those original teachings... The difference being 
> that Blavatsky studied at the feet of those wise Masters, and from the books 
> they pointed out for her to read -- while the modern channelers fool themselves 
> into thinking she got it through talking to their spirits.  That's utter 
> baloney, designed to fool the mob and create a new religion with themselves as 
> the prophet or prophetess.  They create those higher Masters in their own 
> minds, and many of them simply parrot whatever misconceptions and superficialities 
> they have gathered from the original teachings first recorded in full in the 
> SD.
> 
> The theosophical metaphysics that Blavatsky taught had nothing to do with 
> forming a new religion.  When she founded the original Theosophical Society 
> with its "three objects," her title was "corresponding secretary". :-) That's 
> probably why Thomas Edison, along with some of the leading lights of science, 
> literature and philosophy of her age, sat at her feet, and became her 
> students.  See: Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge and the Objects of the 
> Theosophical Movement she laid down as the purpose of the theosophical society.
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sdcommnt/sdc-hp.htm
> http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/3-ObjectsOfTheosophicalMovement/
> 
> As for the idea that Blavatsky's teachers were Buddhists... I conclude -- 
> after comparing their teachings with those of the Buddha, Guatama -- that he 
> was originally a Hindu educated sage of royal blood who recognized the 
> inconsistencies of the Vedas, and the falsity of the Brahmanic interpretation that 
> gave them an opportunity to rule a hierarchical religion which professed to be 
> a mirror of the metaphysical universe and its myriad's of "gods." 
> 
> This forced Guatama to search out the esoteric doctrine, and ultimately, 
> through its application in the four noble truths, reform Hinduism and eliminate 
> its dependency on a mystical hierarchy of Gods and their Brahmanic 
> representatives... Who were much like the Pope and his Jesuit priests of the Catholic 
> hierarchy of Christianity.  In no way did Buddha attempt to falsify or 
> eliminate the correct teachings of the Vedas, Puranas and Upanishads.  He only 
> reinterpreted them to form a new approach to ethics and morality based on their 
> true esoteric meaning.  Later this esoteric doctrine was shown to be an ancient 
> knowledge of the Tibetans, who eventually converted to Buddhism when they 
> recognized him as the true Avatar who came down to save the major religion of 
> the world from its fall into "Spiritual Materialism" as Chogyam Trungpa said 
> about it in his book of the same name.
> 
> Accordingly, Guatama is much like Jesus, who tried to reform the Hebrew 
> hierarchy of crafty priests, by giving them another interpretation of those noble 
> truths.  Unfortunately, he was not as successful as Buddha in his attempt to 
> achieve a peaceful and plentiful world that could also reject materialism.  
> Although, both of them have become obsolete due to the expansion of 
> population beyond the capacity of the world to maintain -- without getting caught up 
> in that materialism and its concurrent selfishness, greed, sensuality and 
> immorality.  Oh well, that's for politicians and economists to work out, and 
> beyond my deeper intellectual interests...  (Although, I won't hesitate to give a 
> helping hand, as best as I know how, to any reformers with good ideas who 
> come along. :-)
> 
> In any ecent, those Masters of Buddhi or Wisdom who assisted Blavatsky, were 
> students of the same esoteric doctrine that educated the Buddha, and thus, 
> they could be labeled "Buddhists."  However, in my view, the esoteric 
> teachings are much deeper in their scientific credulity than all the metaphysical 
> teachings of the modern exoteric Buddhists that study and practice only the 
> Paramitas... (Other than those who are the masters of  the esoteric doctrines 
> among the Tibetans.) 
> 
> Is it any wonder, then, why the Dalai Lama has such a profound interest in 
> quantum field, holographic paradigm, and superstring/M theories? ... Just, as 
> I see these scientific ideas getting more and more metaphysical as they 
> approach closer and closer to the esoteric doctrine... That is, Blavatsky's 
> "Secret Doctrine" stripped of all its mystical and supernatural camouflage applied 
> by the priests of ALL the organized religions -- that force their 
> congregations to see "Intelligent Design" as referring to a separate supernatural God 
> (or Gods) -- with personality.  Ha, ha, that's really funny.  How could 
> absolute perfection, being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, have a name or 
> label, let alone a human-like personality?  Who are they kidding?  Even the 
> word God is a misnomer (in spite of each of the three letters being symbolic of 
> the primal beginning)... Although Moses got it right when he heard his Inner 
> voice say, "I am That I am" when he asked his inner spiritual self projected 
> outwardly to a "burning bush" (that could have been cannibas sativa :-), "Who 
> are you?" ... Which proves to me that even the ancient Egyptian Cabalists 
> (Moses was an Egyptian, wasn't he?) knew better... Even though it got twisted 
> later into the Hebrew Kabbala with its added mysticism... And then separated 
> into a single aspect of its ten fold nature by the misinterpretation of the 
> translated Pentateuch by the later Christians (although they still acknowledged 
> its initial trifold field nature with their anthropomorphised Trinity.  
> However, all that's too deep to discuss here... But it's all there for the taking 
> in Blavatsky's Isis Unveiled (a fascinating read, by the way). And its 
> underlying metaphysics and basis of geometry and numerology is more or less fully 
> explained in the Secret Doctrine (if one can wade through its dense 
> semantics, and complex syntax. :-)
> 
> So, if we were to label my beliefs in the sort of "God" or higher 
> intelligence my ABC theory postulates, we might say that I could call myself a 
> spiritual Pantheist, practical Idealist, or monadic Idealist.  Be assured, there's no 
> "mysticism" or supernatural beings or any other sort of magic implied in 
> those designations.  (Although, the words magic and imagination contain the 
> first part of the word magnetism -- which plays a basic role in the involution 
> and evolution of the Cosmos, as well as being the carrier of all cosmogenetic 
> information and intelligence, as well as "Life".)
> 
> Unlike many of the modern channelers who would still have difficulty in 
> admitting that the metaphysics in the Secret Doctrine (if they studied it) is 
> simply being explained to them by their inner voices to justify their own 
> preconceptions as well as misconceptions... I take the position that all labels are 
> meaningless, there are no "authorities," and we must judge all theories on 
> their basic merits.  Fortunately, Blavatsky wrote it all down with the claim 
> that she was just gathering and tying together a "bouquet of flowers" culled 
> from every written source of the esoteric (thus secret) doctrine... Starting 
> from the beginning of Man's time on Earth... And, going as far back as the 
> writings of Hermes, Pythagorus, Plato, etc., etc., up to the philosophers and 
> scientists of the 18th and 19th Century.
> 
> As she predicted, all that modern "Western" physical science can do from 
> there on out, is polish down all its rough edges, correct all its mistakes and 
> misconceptions, close all its blind alleys, resolve all its paradoxes, and 
> eventually arrive at the same conclusions as the formerly esoteric, and now 
> exoteric, Secret Doctrine of the Eastern metaphysical sciences.
> 
> So let's not conclude that the ancient theosophy Blavatsky wrote down, came 
> through "channeling."  That "synthesis of science, religion, and philosophy" 
> she gave out, always existed, and no matter what means Blavatsky used to get 
> her knowledge, it should be examined strictly on its own merits.  To pass it 
> off, simplistically, as not worth studying because of its origin from a "cou
> ple of Buddhists" appears to be a nonsensical statement, based on either 
> religious prejudice or a profound ignorance of the true nature of Esoteric 
> Buddhism, that I cannot agree with. 
> 
> To answer your flip statement that I claim "Intelligent Design is consistent 
> with Theosophy" -- after making sure to downgrade theosophy into the blabber 
> of mystical channelers who believe in a supernatural God -- all I can say is 
> you haven't heard a word of what I said or Blavatsky said about considering 
> the universe to be its own intelligent designer -- without any outside, 
> mystical God.  I hope the above clarification of where I stand, will enlighten you 
> into understanding what "Intelligen Design" really means -- without all the 
> supposedly scientific rhetorical "proofs of God" flung out in the current 
> creation vs. Evolution debate.
> 
> My suggestion is that before you make judgments about such theories, instead 
> of just "following the results of channelers" -- that you more deeply study 
> what they have to say, and compare it to the fundamental propositions or 
> principles of theosophy and the metaphysical logic and conclusions based on 
> them.  However, when I claim my belief in an intelligently designed universe, I 
> base it solely on my own theory -- which just happens to be consistent with 
> theosophy, as well as with most western science that expands beyond the 
> observable physical nature of universal reality, yet also explains that physical 
> nature in unity with its deepest metaphysical nature.
> 
> So, with that I'll leave you to come to your own conclusions based on 
> whatever new knowledge you gain from either science or theosophy or both... 
> Depending on how deep you are willing to go into their study, comparison and 
> synthesis... While always keeping in mind that consciousnes must always remain 
> separate from matter in order to observe it without any effect on itself other 
> than qualia or subjective experience.  I'm certain, that if you did go deep 
> enough, you would, as an open minded scientific thinker, ultimately end up with 
> my theory of ABC. :-)
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Lenny
> 
> In a message dated 3/8/06 2:35:01 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lenny,
> 
> I am a practicing Hindu as well as a scientist (retired) and less so a 
> Theosophist (but still have my card), as I put more stock in the discoveries of 
> physics regarding what is true than I do in Theosophy which was channeled from 
> a couple of Buddhist monks, both before and after they died.
> 
> I have followed the results of several channels, all that I am aware of, as 
> that is an aspect of nature that conventional science neglects. However, the 
> various channels and their respective sources are often very inconsistent. In 
> fact the most consistent aspect of the information channeled is its flowery 
> prose, almost poetry.
> 
> The channeling that gave birth to Theosophy is less flowery than most, but 
> the source is closer to earth than most of the other channels. It seems that 
> the closer the source is to god, the channeled info is more flowery and has 
> less content. But in every case, there is distortion in the channel, presumably 
> on the receiver end. Madam Blavatsky cannot claim to be a perfect channel 
> not can her two Buddhist monks claim to be the highest source.
> 
> So my approach to information from channels is the same as my approach to 
> the various religions and their teachings. When I see consistency between the 
> teachings, including channel teachings, I regard that as closest to the truth. 
> Then I look for consistency with the principles of science, being a 
> scientist.
> 
> To take any one set of teaching as absolute truth is to close your mind to 
> all other possibilities. More often than not that leads to rather extreme 
> viewpoints such as your original claim that  Intelligent Design is consistent 
> with Theosophy.
> 
> Richard
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 01:56:12 EST
> Subject: Re: #2 - Re: [Mind and Brain] Intelligent Design Argument - Does 
> disproof of scientific materialism = proof of theosophy?
> 
> 
> Richard,
> 
>      8/**     9*998
> 
> Sorry about that.   Seems I had another accidental mailing (the mouse fell 
> on
> my keyboard:) just as I was starting to respond to your last commentary on
> this subject.   So here we go again. . . :-)
> 
> While I appreciate your response to my reply below, I don't know how far our
> agreement coincides... Since, in your view of primal beginnings, you base 
> your
> conclusions on its fit with materialistic science... While I agree that such
> a system of science seems to explain the physics that has lead to much
> advances in technology -- I do not depend on any of its jargon or its
> mathematics,
> that can explain nothing about the true analog nature of fundamental reality 
> ...
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]