Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00998)

Rich responded to Alexis's comments on the second volume of the
S.D., and made a comment that seems to me illustrative of
difficulties in Theosophical dialogue; also illustrative of
inflated ideas about adepts.  Rich writes, "I do not actually
know of any scientific evidence being brought forward that
would disprove her claims...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."

Sounds quite reasonable.  But when contemplating a response, I
realized that the burden of proof here was immense and unfair.
What the position seems to come down to, Rich, is "I refuse to
believe that HPB was wrong about anything unless you prove it
to me by exhaustive demonstration and argument."  And the
person who tries to prove it to you gets the dubious pleasure
of being immediately perceived as an "attacker" of HPB and the
Masters.  Since I have a very slim knowledge of evolution
myself, the challenge is doubly intimidating.  To make the
obvious point (obvious to anyone without a vested interest in
the matter) that HPB's anthropology is hopelessly incompatible,
not just with prevalent scientific *theories* but with amply
demonstrated *facts*-- I have to run the risk of sectarian
anger and hostility, as well as condemnation as an ignorant
amateur.  And for what possible benefit, to me or anyone else?

Responding is triply difficult because the library is being
carpeted today and I cannot even run to the reference shelves
for a book from which I could select some counterevidence.
So what I will do instead is ask Mike Mueckler, a research
biologist, to comment on the evolutionary scenario laid out in
the Secret Doctrine and its compatibility with scientific
knowledge as opposed to theory.  I hope he is willing to offer
a moderately detailed commentary.

As for how an adept could believe in or purvey doctrines that
are "absolute nonsense" from a scientific point of view, I
don't see any conflict here at all.  Only an inflated view of
adepts' knowledge would make it seem inconsistent.  Tibetan
Buddhist lamas, Sufi shaykhs, Vedantist gurus, Rosicrucian
adepts, etc. etc. have preserved esoteric transmissions through
the centuries while also purveying unscientific theories about
various subjects.  Since it is relatively easy to identify
people in history who qualify as "adepts" in various
traditions, and not one of them can be shown to have demonstrated a
complete grasp of what-is-now-contemporary science, the burden of proof should
be shifted here.  Rather than, "Prove that an adept can
possibly be wrong about a scientific matter," the challenge
should be "Prove that there has ever been a single adept who
was *not* wrong about *lots* of scientific matters."  If you
turn around and say, "but by definition, an adept is always
right," the inevitable riposte is, "by *that* definition,
adepts have never existed."