Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01042)

Paul writes,

> 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."


I will admit that I am biased towards HPB, though I myself have found minor
mistakes in her Sanskrit, Tibetan, and a few over-generalizations.

But this is a THEOSOPHICAL list.  Most participants are THEOSOPHISTS.  This
doesn't mean slavish adherence to one or another school of Theosophy, but an
A PRIORI attitude that Theosophy is generally true, and worth investigating.
 So yes, let me "come out of the closet" as a Theosophist who is inclined to
accept HPB's teachings unless there is GOOD evidence that she was wrong about
something or other.

But people need not take my view of things.  There is no enforcement of
Theosophical orthodoxy (or even orthopraxy) here.  In fact, a good number of
people on the list seem to revel in iconoclasm.  Good for them.  But I don't
apologize for putting the burden of proof on those who hold positions
disagreeing with HPB.

Nonetheless, with the small background I have in science in general (an
astrophysics major) and with a little sub-interest in current trends on
evolution, I think I am willing to bring forward current study and thinking
(from Stephen Jay Gould, Fritjof Capra, Amit Goswami, Gary Zukov, Erich
Jantsch, Michal Murphy, etc. etc. etc.) which can be seen as supporting one
or another aspects of HPB's anthropogenesis.

This doesn't mean that I am foolish enough to believe that scientists in the
mass will tomorrow -- or ever !! -- come around to HPB's position.
 Nevertheless, to dismiss the anthropogenesis of HPB (and lest we forget, her
Teachers) as "nonsense" out of hand with no SPECIFIC references, and ignoring
current paradigm shifts in progress, seems shallow and near-sighted.

Science is shifting, changing all the time.  Gray heads are seldom converted
to a new paradigm -- generally, those who hold the fort die off, leaving
younger and more agile minds to carry on the work in subtly or radically new
directions.

I submit that we are in the midst of such a scientific "paradigm shift" now
(borrowing the phrase from Thomas Kuhn, *The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions*) and that, if I read current trends aright, HPB is looking
better and better year by year.

A minor point of correction: the date for Homo Sapiens has been pushed back
from 70,000 BC to about 2 million BC the last few decades.  One radical group
of scientists (no, they're not Theosophists) push the date back to 10 million
BC on good evidence, which I can discuss next time.  That's more than
half-way to HPB's date of 18 million for the division of the sexes and
incarnation of Manas during the 3rd root race.

I think we shouldn't be so quick to write the Old Lady off.

Paul writes,

> it is relatively easy to identify
> people in history who qualify as "adepts" in various
> traditions . . .
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."


Well, Paul, here we disagree.  I think true Adepts are NOT that easy to spot
in history, and I think you are using the word Adept (along with Alexis) in
your own way.  Fine.  But HPB meant it in the sense of Mahatma, or close to
it.  If you don't believe such Mahatmas have ever existed, so be it.  This is
not a tenet required of any Theosophist (that's another discussion).  But I
will state that I do believe in Mahatmas, as foolish as that may seem to
some.  Let them laugh.  This is the Theosophical board, not the post-modern
board.  Those who believe in Mahatmas need not offer any apologies, nor need
they belittle those who think differently.

It seems HPB was wrong about more than anthropology, however.  By your
definition, Paul, she made up the entire Great Lodge and her personal
teachers as well. --- ooops, I forgot you've written three books on that
topic.  <g>