Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00177)

> Sorry Bart, I only know of one.  Are you going to be able to give me
evidence
> for another 6?    Randy

What's your evidence of the *one*? Are you using your *physical senses* to
become aware of and show "evidence" of your *physical body*? Would that be
your proof that it exists? Perhaps if you could figure out how to use your
*mind* to become aware of your "mental body", or your "intuition" to become
aware of buddhic body, you could catch a glimpse of the Theosophical model.
However, if you *persist* in the attitude that demands proof within the
parameters that you define it, according to the terms you choose ... then
you should probably just flee from Theosophy right now - because it will
never satisfy you. And frankly, it doesn't want to.

One if its most fundamental theses is that it *is* possible for human
beings, ultimately, to know the "truth" with a capital T ... but that in
their normal state, they are simply far too undeveloped to even begin to
understand it. Theosophy *does* suggest that there are means of so
changinging one's inner nature that currently latent, dormant qualities of
the human constitution may be brought to life by a variety of means, and
that these qualities will also produce, as an aftereffect, abilities that
*will* permit one to search the nature of reality at a far deeper level than
is open to the norm. But from the very beginning of one's search, of one's
questioning, every time you demand to know some "evidence" of supersensible
worlds, you've got to *also* ask whether *you* have the faculties, the
abilities, the point of view necessary to *understand* it. Blind people
shouldn't demand to see the sun - at least not without asking whether there
is something *they* might need to do to qualify themselves to see it. nor
should they demand the existance of the sun be demonstrated to them in a
fashion that fits within their limited abilities of perception. It never
will be ... never *can* be - all that can happen is that a few hints can be
given, and few aftereffects of the sun pointed out.

What HPB, and the Adepts behind her (if, that is, you believe they exist)
presented in Theosophy is a model - a vocabulary with which to begin
thinking about interior worlds, a model within which to understand both
cosmogenisis and anthrogenesis, a schema within which human evolution (as
well as mineral, plant, and animal) allegedly unfolds, and, given that
model, hints at the means by which a person's particular evolution might be
considerably speeded. They did not present the core of their wisdom, in fact
overtly said that it is only but the barest beginning ... and that western
minds, on the whole, would probably too dense to even understand most of
*that*. in fact, people have spent decades simply trying to get a handle on
just a few pieces of Theosophical Literature ... and each decade discover
whole new layers within it - as *they* become refined enough to *perceive*
those layers.

But get real clear about this - no one will try to *sell* you Theosophy. Its
not a religion. No one will try to "prove" anything to you, and its no one's
duty to give you "evidence" for anything. Theosophy is simply something
offered.The people on this list, on the whole, are not proponents or
salespeople. They are people who each has found some value, something
interesting in the works, and are each pursuing their own paths ... stopping
now and then to talk to one another about the travelling. Fact is, the
adepts, in the eariest Theosophical literature, not only didn't try to gain
recruits, but actively sought to hide themselves, and in fact considered
that it would likely be centuries before the human species as a whole would
even want to begin the sort of work necessary to scale the heights.

You demand "evidence" now of exceedingly refined bodies and inner worlds -
yet do not even wish to take the time to learn the vocabulary necessary to
speak of them, let alone the time it would take to develop *yourself* to the
point where you *could* directly perceive them. Would you also demand
"evidence", from MD's, of the existance of organs in the body, but decline
to learn even the vocabulary of anatomy, let alone spend the years needed to
qualify yourself to be in an operating theatre? To demand that evidence meet
the standard of your "common sense" - hell with Theosophy, you won't even
begin to accept quantum mechanics - which pretty much demands that you throw
out fully half of the assumptions about "reality" that are derived from
"empirical" evidence.

At any rate - perhaps I can save you a bunch of time here: No one will prove
any Theosophical concepts to you. No one will demonstrate the existance of
supersensible worlds. No one will even attempt to give you "empirical"
evidence, sufficient to satisy your "common sense" and "reason", that the
entire structure described in the cosmo and anthro genesis of Theosophy is
anything other than pure fantasy. Even will be completely happy if you wish
to believe that none of it exists - in fact, the majority of the world will
agree fully with you. If you *persist* in your current attitude, you'll get
virtually nowhere in understanding Theosophy. An ultimately will conclude
that it would be a waste of time to even try. And from within your
worldview - it *will* be. If there is something inside of you, however, that
is willing to not only question "empirical evidence", but your own
assumptions, your own worldview, your most cherished views of what knowledge
itself is - all I can say is a number of people on this list (and there are
some pretty damn smart people here), and over the last century some of the
world's most creative and intelligent people, have found that the
foundational works of Theosphy contained thinfs that *did* challenge them,
that made it worth their while to learn its vocabulary, and even engage in
what might be called "the work".

No one here will try to talk you into it, but should you of your own accord
get bitten by the bug, and start pursuing it in earnest ... you'll certainly
be welcomed. -JRC