Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01018)

At 10:32 AM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote:

Paul:

This is an excellent and very well thought out response. I very much hope
your scientific colleague will provide the precise you mention. It's
something really needed. The Theosophical-religionists have a totally
ridiculous belief about Adepts. Francis Bacon (and even CWL classed him as
an Adept) was one of the smartest men who ever lived, as he himself said: "I
have made of all human knowledge, my field of provenance", and in many ways
he did. He also knew absolutely nothing about the advances in scientific
knowledge that were to come and so were he to materialize in our midst
today, for the first few months he'd be as ignorant as can be. As to Rich's
emphasis on Darwinianism that just displays an unawareness of modern
viewpoints. We know today that Darwin was as wrong about some things as
Blavatsky was.

alexis dolgorukii
The Eclectic Theosophist

>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."
>
>