Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00724)

In message <199607281319.IAA28366@main.com>, "Paul M.M. Kieniewicz"
<pmmkien@main.com> writes
> a point I'm making is that the scientific titbits are not
>titbits at all but comprise a large portion of the 19th century literature -
>everything from the Cosmogenesis, Anthropogenesis - to the later clairvoyant
>investigations of CWL. 

>>snip<<

> but most of that can't be checked, so
>you've no way of telling if it's all BS. But the stuff that can be checked
>should be checked.

Indeed it should.
>
>In the 20+ years that I've been associated with theosophists, I have noticed
>that most theosophists distance themselves from the scientific
>pronouncements and are uneasy about them - possibly because so many of them
>are plainly wrong. I discussed this once with  John Algeo, asking - why the
>new edition of CWL's "The Inner Life" had been so severely edited. The
>answer was that the edited portions contained material that was found to
>disagree with the present findings of science.

Some of us who are concerned with such old-fashioned notions like
integrity, honesty, truth, etc., ar every bit as uneasy as you are, and
seek to rectify matters.  Theosophy International grew partly our of a
perceived need in this area.  One "cyberpoint" was made when I uploaded
the text of CWL about Life on Mars ... :-)
>
>To me, it all smacks of a coverup of sorts. Theosophists have a tendency
>when faced with such a discrepancy  either to edit  the discrepancy  out of
>future editions, or explain them away with statements such as: "Atlantis is
>only a myth", "The Masters weren't being literal", "This is an occult truth
>and not a physical one." Or "You, Paul K., have the wrong background and
>can't be a useful judge of these weighty matters..."

This appears to be true of The Adyar based Societies, and dyed-in-the-
wool theosophical fundamentalists (almost a contraditiob in terms).  It
is most definitely *not* true of all of us.  I recently posted some old
and newly discovered material on the CWL affair to theos-roots, partly
in order to correct such generalisations, and partly to set the record a
bit straighter.  If you would like copies, I can e-mail them to you.
>
> These are to my mind all attempts to evade the fact that we are unwilling
>to put Theosophy to the test, and  when  we are faced with discrepancies -
>we are unwilling to admit that these exist. Because IF - Atlantis  never had
>any physical (not to mention etheric or other) existence, the basic
>teachings DO fall down like a house of cards. If the few statements that can
>be checked in the teaching turn out to be wrong, then the ones that can't be
>checked are probably just as wrong.

Which is why many theosophists are themselves skeptical about some
theosophical writings (19th > early 20th centuries).
>
>How about "There is no religion higher than truth"?
>
Let's go for it, and *stick* with it*!

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html
(Note figure "one" after WWW)