Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01271)

At 12:36 PM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Daniel comments as follows:
>
>In the above remarks you write:  " the latest
>anthropological/paleontological studies all generally agree...."
>
>To me this statement means or at least implies  that official science or the
>scientific community or the majority of anthropologists/paleontologists
>agree on "such and such".  And you say that this "such and such" knowledge
>therefore invalidates HPB's anthopogenesis.  Hence throw out Root Races,
>Atlantis, Lemuria, etc.

HPB's Anthropogenesis, despite Rich's denials, is, to the best of my
knowledge almost entirely invalidated by the current "state of the art" in
Anthropology, Paleobiology, etc. Atlantis and Lemuria are entirely
speculative, there exists no proof either for or against their existence,
therefore they must be "shelved" as it were, until some kind of valid proof
either way is obtained. They're an interesting hypothesis as are "Flying
Saucers", but they are hardly factual, at least not at this point in time. I
didn't say "throw the S.>D. Out" it contains some interesting hypotheses,
but they cannot be assumed to be factual as they are neither amenable to
proof or amenable to disproof.
>
>But if we go by that kind of thinking, how much of what is left in HPB's
>teachings (after throwing out anthopogenesis) would merit our attention?

Daniel: I think there's one hell of a lot in HPB's overall writing that
deserves our attention, and I have never even hinted otherwise. I just
happen to think concerning one's self with things that really are irrelevant
to our own lives, when those things are utterly unprovable and must be
"taken on faith" is a waste of time.

Well, for starters, there are HPB's teachings on
>the occult constitution of a human being. ( The kind of stuff Jerry HE and
>Jerry S
>have been going around and around on.)

That's nice, and if the two Jerry's and Kim find it enticing, they are
welcome to it. But to me the same objections apply, the whole thing is
neither provable or disprovable, it conflicts with my own experiences, and
it has to be "taken on faith". My own personal credo is" "Never take
anything on Faith".

PB's affirms the reality of  psychic
>phenomena and affirms the reality of other invisible planes of existence.
>She affirms
>the reality of life after death and even reincarnation. She even performed
>psychic feats such
>as materializing a cup and saucer at a Simla, India picnic.

Obviously, at least as far as I'm concerned the reality of psychic phenomena
are amenable to proof and disproof, at least to me. As to the unreality of
death, I can accept what she claims by personal experience. As to
reincarnation, My view of that is different than hers, and for all you know
hers may have changed. As far as the cup and saucer, that was the dumbest
trick she ever pulled it's been used to prove she was a fraud ever since it
happened. And if you're the theosophical scholar you claim to be you know
that's true. It doesn't matter whether she did it or not, most people don't
believe it and that's what matters.


But what does
>official science
>and the scientific community as a whole say that is relevant to these
>teachings and claims of HPB's?
>
>For example, in an 1988  report prepared under the auspices of the National
>Academy of Sciences,  the following conclusions were drawn:
>
>"...the best scientific evidence does not justify the conclusion that
>ESP...exists."

Now Daniel: You know I not only believe in ESP but practice it, BUT, what
else can responsible scientists say, there is some statistical evidence
amassed by The J.B. Rhine Institute, but when it comes to actual recordable
empirical evidence, and reliably repeatable phenomena, what else can they
say? As far as they know, they're right, and all those of us who are
psychics can hope for is that a new methodology of "testing" or "Trying the
spirits" will be developed by scientists who count. Those whole actually
believe in ESP or paranormal phenomena are considered to be Kooks, at least,
and crazy, at worst. And when one views the overall community (Theosophy
included) who can blame them. CWL's maundering are hardly a good
introduction to a serious philosophical study.

>"...Nor does scientific evidence offer support for the existence of
>psychokinesis...."

See above.
>
>"The Commitee finds no scientific justification from reserach conducted over
>a period
>of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."

See above.
>
>Most members of this committee are well-known psychologists.

These people are honestly reporting their opinions on what they have they
can legitimately work with, you wouldn't suggest the Secret Doctrine as
evidence would you?
>
>Furthermore, if ESP and PK were accepted in the scientific community, would we
>not see parapsychology being taught in universities and colleges?  Would we
>not see
>parapsychology as a valid part of departments of psychology in universities
>and colleges?
>In reality, very few universities in the WHOLE world even have courses on
>parapsychology. And can you  name the departments of psychology that have
>parapsychological sections?

If it were accepted, and acceptable, we would. It is not yet accepted so we
don't. I really can't see why this surprises you. By their own best lights
they are being reasonable and careful.
>
>I think we can truthfully say (paraphrasing Alexis and the above mentioned
>report on
psychic phenomena) the following:

Daniel: You don't actually mean "paraphrasing" what you do is "twist" a
persons meanings to fit your own thesis and make the other person look if
nothing else, unreasonable. It's really not good intellectual practice and
it's rude to boot.
>
>The latest psychological studies all generally agree that there is no
>scientific justification for the existence of parapsychological (psychic)
>phenomena.

This statement is entirely true, it states the majority of the scientific
and academic community's position exactly.
>
>And Dr. Michael Mueckler, a cellular biologist, (who has been posted and
>mentioned on this
>list before), would agree with the above statement.  Mueckler says that his
>scientific
>colleagues would also concur  with such a dismissive summary about psychic
>phenomena.
>
>Therefore, in light of this scientific finding, who would be foolish enough
>to believe what
>HPB's says about the psychic, about life after death, etc.  Following
>Alexis' reasoning, we
>should therefore throw out everything HPB said on THIS  subject, too.  Right?

Daniel: That line of so-called reasoning is entirely non-sequitous and you
surely know that! And I think you've managed to paraphrase this as
maliciously as is humanly possible. But it is a terrible distortion of what
I've been saying. And I will not permit it to pass unchallenged.
There are things in HPB's Secret doctrine, and in her E.S. Material, and in
some of her other writings which I believe are just plain wrong and which I
therefore have rejected. There are other things she wrote that remain to be
either proven or dis proven and those I have set aside, in a wait and see
attitude. There are things that HPB wrote that I have either seen proven, or
proven myself and those I accept, not on faith, but on the basis of experience.
>
>Well, remember HPB was
>fallible and was (let's face it) simply wrong.  And she could have made
>"intentional" errors?
>Right?

Daniel: That's really kind of juvenile sarcasm. She WAS fallible. and
sometimes she could easily have been wrong. She never made  "intentional
errors" but some things she said may have been what she referred to as
"blinds" and were intended to serve  as "hints' of "clues" to those with the
inner independence not to take things at face value.


Alexis dolgorukii
Nothing, even theosophy, is higher than truth
>
>Okay, now what is left of HPB's teachings?  Let us turn to an examination of
>WHATS LEFT......................
>
>
>