Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01100)

Rich states that participation on theos-l, or at least
identification as a Theosophist, means that one has an A PRIORI
attitude that Theosophy is generally true.  I must differ, and
feel sure that HPB herself would as well.  While we *may* have
the a priori assumption that *theosophy* is generally true, it
is quite alien to the spirit of HPB to assume a priori that
Theosophy-- the modern expression by her and her successors--
is generally true.

Theos-l may or may not be a place where the burden of proof is
on those who would disagree with HPB.  On the subject of
anthropogenesis, I'd say the burden of proof is on those who
would assert:

1. That present "Aryan" humanity was preceded by a race of
Atlantean giants who had highly evolved civilizations 5-10
million years ago.
2. That before that, there was a third-race humanity which
evolved from "egg-born" to mammalian reproduction.
3. That humanity was on earth before the animals.
4. That human evolution has proceeded from spiritual, to
semi-ethereal, to physical form.
5. That 18 million years ago, a single "descent of
Manasaputras" transformed something non-human into humanity.

etc. etc.

Now, maybe I'm missing the fine points, as this is a subject
that never appealed to me much.  As it turns out, Mike M.'s
anthropologist friend does not wish to respond to this thread,
but he has another colleague who might.

Your mission, Rich, should you choose to accept it, is to write
a one-page or so summary of Blavatskian anthropology, stating
where and how you think it can or will be confirmed by future
science, for this person to address.

PS-- I hope you are joking about my books.  HPB never said the
adepts were always right, never said anyone could be-- so my
assertion that a definition of them as infallible simply
renders them nonexistent is based on capital t Theosophy.  You
surely know that a more realistic definition does not assert or imply that
"she made up the entire Great Lodge and her personal teachers
as well."