Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00986)

At 07:37 PM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>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?

I think Rich, that our definitions of an adept are somewhat different.
First, who is there to "ALLOW" an adept to do anything. As I see it an Adept
does what seems right to themselves, one assumes they have the ability to
decide what's correct. Now, as to Anthropogenesis being nonsense. One: I
don't see that as a flaw or failure in HPB in any way. In the first case she
lived in an age that was almost totally ignorant of any science at all. Two:
She was, I believe, trying to enact a kind of "shock therapy" on western
intellectuality. Three: She was also trying to effect a kind of "shock
therapy" on Western Religion. Four: She was also trying to effect a kind of
"shock therapy" on Western Materialism. In actuality she succeeded beyond
her wildest dreams. But, that doesn't mean the contents of the Secret
doctrine were or are intended to be contrasted with the scientific knowledge
of over a century later. I have always believed that the "Shock Therapy"
which the secret Doctrine was, I believe, intended to effect, was primarily
intended to get the Western segment of Humanity to begin actually thinking
about their belief structures. It clearly "worked". I know that she was also
disturbed by the materialistic bias of Darwinian Evolutionism, and
rightfully so. An Adept teaches to reach certain goals that really have
nothing to do with the absolute accuracy of what they teach. Now, it does
seem to me that in light of what modern anthropology, Paleontology, etc. are
discovering, and the newspapers are full of it quite regularly. If the Human
Race per se is only from 70,000 to 100.000 years old, and if one leaves out,
as one must for lack of proof, any reference to a precursor civilization,
then the times and dating in Anthropogenesis may easily be described as
"absolute nonsense". Another point I want to make is that there is only one
human race, the majority of current opinion insists that the division of
humankind into Africa, Mongol, Caucasian etc, is due to the effects of
environmental mutation and that the Human Race per se is monolithic. If one
accepts this as a "near truth" and I do (I say "near truth" because of
course, all the information isn't in) then the rigid divisiveness of
Anthropogenesis must be rejected intellectually.
>
>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.

It is my impression that Darwin has long been replaced by Alfred Wallace's
competing theory and other's far more contemporary in our scientific
thought. Arguing with Darwin is like arguing with Karl Marx they are both
hopelessly outdated. I've read a lot of Stephen Jay Gould's stuff and
frankly I find him less than impressive. As far as "vicious disputes between
Paleontologists and Molecular Biologists" are concerned. You've been
recently enough a denizen of Akademe to not be aware of what a total "snake
pit" it is.
>
>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.

That is all true, but they are also not adequately accounted for by the
Secret Doctrine.
>

>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.

I see these as speculative philosophy except for Ken Wilbur whose philosophy
is entirely religion based/biased. In my view mutation is sometimes random
and sometimes environmentally responsive, and "survival of the fittest" is,
I believe, only rejected a priori because of religious bias against the
seemingly violent attributes of the idea.
>
>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.

Rich: I doubt if she'd want it. It is my belief that the S.D. wasn't ever
intended to be taken to be the last word on any subject, especially by it's
author.
>
>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.

I think, or should I say I hope, I've responded to this point.

>
>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.

I really don't think my point of view of Adepts and error is as dichotomous
as you think it is. I think we differ very widely in both our expectations
of them and our definition of them.If one doesn't think of Adepts as
necessarily or even as intentionally "infallible" then Adepts can indeed
make mistakes and even utter nonsense. Aristotle was an Adept and a lot of
his natural science is nonsense.

alexis dolgorukii
The Eclectic Theosophist
>
>