Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00964)

This is a question for Alexis, but anyone of course should feel free to jump
in.

Alexis wrote,

> the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society
> was only a place to receive such instruction and practice during the
> lifetime of it's Adept Level Teacher H.P.B.


If HPB was, in your opinion, truly an Adept, with the large (but not
infinite) degree of knowledge and power that assumes, why then is the
Anthropogenesis of her S.D. (volume two), considered to be "absolute
nonsense."  Why would an Adept teach (or be ALLOWED to teach) ideas that are
so far off track?

While I may indeed be accused of blind and even foolish faith in HPB, I do
not actually know of any scientific evidence being brought forward which
would disprove her claims -- nor do I see much evidence (at this point) which
supports it, unless we turn to the writings of Edgar Cayce etc.

The Darwinian theory is under much attack these days, and not merely by
mindless Christian "creationists."  Stephen Jay Gould, leading paleontologist
at Harvard, has re-introduced the long-forgotten theory that "ontogeny
recapitulates philogeny". We see more and more books like "Darwin On Trial"
and Denton's "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" documenting vicious disputes
between paleontologists and molecular biologists, and the disintegration of a
dominant model of physical (let along spiritual) evolution.

The gaps in the fossil record are massive, not occasional, and we have
unaccountable phenomena such as the sudden emergence of the wing, of
feathers, of hemoglobin, of the eye, or prokaryotic cells -- totally
unaccountable by current theory.

We futher have emerging new paradigms like Rupert Sheldrake (morphogenetic
fields) Michael Murphy ("The Future of the Body") and Ken Wilber documenting
an alternative, "holistic" view of evolution where consciousness, not random
mutation and "survival of the fittest," are primary.

Again, I think scientific documentation for HPB's theory, in detail, is very
very slim just now.  But given the radical failure of traditional
(reductionistic) theory to account for the obvious phenomena, I find myself
willing to give HPB the benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being.

Yet I am perfectly willing to attend to counter-evidence, if such can be
brought forward (in DETAIL, not in sweeping generalizations), which weakens
or entirely ruins HPB's stand.

In conclusion, I reiterate that I find it odd to refer to HPB as an Adept,
and then dismiss major portions of her teachings as "nonsense."  It seems one
is welcome to one's opinions, but one can't have it both ways.