Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00942)

Chris>I'm curious as to how "process" theosophists (such as Alexis) view the
"science+religion=theosophy" theme.

Chris: in addition I'm curious as to what *arguments* 'process' theosophists
have to dismiss core-theosophy (HPB & Mahatma Letters) as irrelevant.
The point is, the 'process' theosophists are sorely lacking in arguments
*or* just not presenting them (I'll except Jerry Schueler with whom
I've had interesting discussions on chaos, karma, etc. - but even
chaos can fit into the framework of theosophical teachings about conflict
of wills and Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma aspects of the cosmos)

I'll except Alexis too, as he said he would present his views and arguments
in the near future. That leaves a lot of other 'process' theosophists
who have not presented *arguments* against the Theosophical teachings
(maybe I've left some of them out who *did* present arguments against
core teachings, but I'm not aware of that)

To make my point a little bit clearer I will point out that no-one
has made a real case against the doctrine of cycles, of which reincarnation
is one example only. Well, I submit that it is next to impossible
to do so, because cycles abund in nature. Your own heart-beat and
respiratory process are clear examples of that.
Accepting the working hypothesis that there is One Life that is the basis
for all, and that all is part and parcel of the Universal Soul implies,
when we accept the validity of applying analogy, that this Soul manifests
periodically, just as everything in (visible) nature manifests periodically.
Accepting this working hypothesis implies more, but I'll leave it with
this example. Plato's ~Phaedo~ is excellent stuff in this regard.

Another intricate topic is that of structure-function-order in the universe.
There are people on this list, myself included, who have some experiences
of seeing angels (not merely devas),elementals etc.
Now, what does this mean? When we see beings from certain planes/spheres
of life what can we imply? That there is more to nature than what is visible
to our ordinary senses. But what is it all about? Many acknowledge the
existence of other planes/spheres of life. So, there is some *structure*
or *order* there, how else could it function? Nobody on this list has
drawn publicly (on this list) any conclusions about that, as far as I know.
This is to my *amazement*. How on earth (heaven, hell) can there be no
structure in this universe. And if my point is acknowledged, why not
discuss some of the implications of this??

To summarize, I see a lot of groaning on this list, but I am downright
*amazed* that none of the  conclusions such as I did are drawn by
'process' theosophists. This is no flame of course, but a serious
attempt to evoke some sensible response from those who consider themselves
as 'too smart to believe in any of this core theosophy nonsense'
Arguments and alternatives, please !

Lastly I want to say that I regard the division of theosophists
into two kind of categories as a very simplistic one. It may have
some value, but I know a lot of people who just study Theosophical
teachings very seriously and try to gain some understanding of these,
try to correlate these with their experiences. They would not like
to be called 'religious adherents' regarding Theosophy. Nor do I.
In fact, I consider this labeling as a kind of *insult* to these people
who try to think for themselves.


Martin