[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?

Jan 09, 2009 04:44 AM
by Cass Silva

As far as I was aware it was Ghandi who led the way for Indian independance. My memory is not good on the subject, but I think Besant opposed it? Others may know more


From: Joseph P. Fulton <>
Sent: Friday, 9 January, 2009 3:31:49 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?

> You did not answer my previous e-mails questions, especially not
this one:
> And I keep hearing you agree upon that Alice A. Bailey is political
and not non-political as H. P. Blavatsky and Morya was. Is that true?
> So your silence to this question tells me you do not know the answer.

So, my silence was a bit loud on that one, but not in the direction
you suppose. I have a lot of posts to reply to and I apologize for
the lack of etiquette in that regards (this goes for you, too Morten).
Not sufficient, but honest. 

Also, is it just me, or is the format of these Yahoo groups hostile to
ease of use? When attempting to reply to something a lot of needless
effort is spent going back to the beginning of the digest and going
back down to the specific comment. OK, rant over with!

Honestly, and depending on how you look at it, HPB's mission was very
political, especially in regards to Indian Independence. From the
viewpoint of Paul Johnson's book "The Masters Revealed", HPB's mission
in India, and the identity of the Mahatmas, themselves was political
in the extreme. 

The thing that turns me off about Bailey is that she makes all of
these grand pronouncements and mixes up doctrines and spews Christian
rant out of the mouth of Buddhists, and notably from personages who
have made their opposition to such teaching clear in their writings. 
If they can't have any rational integrity on that count, what can they
on any other? For all I know she could make the next Dalai Lama an
incarnation of Jerry Falwell.


--- In theos-talk@yahoogro, Cass Silva <silva_cass@ ...> wrote:
> I haven't read Dawkins but wouldn't mind a brief synopsis of this
theory.ÃÂ However, found this in my archives which may stimulate debate
> Cass
> The technological triumphs of science over the past 300 years - of
which Newtonian Physics is considered the foundation - provided strong
support for the concept that the universe was entirely a physical
phenomenon associated with the concepts of Philosophical Materialism. 1
> Ironically, this is not a position embraced by Newton himself. For
him the creation of the Universe was inconceivable without divine
intervention of a superior intelligence or Creator. Newton believed
God created the universe as a system governed by mechanical laws and
once it had been created, it could be studied and understood as such.
> "However, whilst Newton's followers kept the image of the universe
as a deterministic super machine, they disposed of the notion of an
overlighting intelligent creative principle as an unnecessary and
embarrassing leftover from the 'irrational' dark ages. Sensory data
about material reality ('objective' data) became the only permissible
source of information in all branches of science." (Stanislav Grof) 2
> The concept that the universe was essentially a 'material' system
operating under the laws of Newtonian Mechanics reflected the basic
metaphysical assumption of Philosophical Materialism and, because it
seemed to describe so well much of what has been observed about the
Universe, it came to dominate entirely the thinking in all disciplines
of science including biology, medicine, psychology, psychiatry etc.
>From the perspective of philosophical materialism, 'matter' is the
elemental stuff comprising the universe and logically the scientific
discipline concerned with the study of 'matter' - namely physics -
became the pre-eminent scientific discipline to which all other
disciplines were subordinate. 3
> "The determined application of this logic ensured that the findings
of other disciplines were not allowed to be in conflict with the basic
theories of physics, resulting in the systematic suppression or
misinterpretation of findings in many fields that could not be brought
into consonance with the materialistic worldview." (Stanislav Grof )4
> As Grof quite rightly states:
> "This strategy was a serious violation of the basic principles of
science. Strictly speaking, scientific theories apply only to the
observations on which they are based and they cannot be automatically
extrapolated to other disciplines. Thus for example, theories about
the human psyche should be based on observations of psychological
processes, not on the theories that physicists have made about the
material world. ... The criterion for the validity of scientific
findings and concepts in a certain area should be based on the rigour
of the scientific method with which they were obtained and not on the
compatibility with the theories of another field " (Grof) 5
> Exacerbating this situation has been the tendency of many scientists
to adhere - without questioning - to outdated theories taught to them
by their mentors and peers and then mistake them for being accurate
and definitive descriptions of reality.
> This distortion of the scientific principle has become so entrenched
within contemporary Western Culture - that any new evidence suggesting
that the basic paradigm underlying the contemporary scientific
understanding of reality may be flawed - is routinely dismissed
without proper investigation. No other better example of this sort of
behaviour can be found than with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.Thus,
despite the lack of any empirical evidence in support of it, and the
growing list of seemingly insurmountable technical 'problems'
associated with the finer details of the theory, Darwinists continue
to argue that the mutation - selection mechanism associated with the
theory must have produced the changes required for the evolution of
new life forms - not because the mechanism has been observed to work
or that there is some irrefutable scientific proof of the same - but
rather because their guiding philosophy assures them that in the
absence of an
> overlighting 'Creative Principle', no other means is available to
do the job. In other words, the theory must be right because in their
eyes, there is no alternative! 6
> In a sense the scientific community has forgotten its purpose
(raison d'etre) and the underlying ethic pertaining to that purpose.
> True scientific procedure calls for keeping an open mind to all
phenomena whilst maintaining a questioning attitude at the same time
and being prepared to modify or dispose of any theory that no longer
accommodates evidence collected in a systematic manner.7
> Today most academics professing to be scientists do not observe this
process - but rather display anuncriticaladheren ce to a materialistic
philosophy taught them by their peers and superiors and because of
this, they tend to ignore or treat as 'unreal' phenomena that do not
fit into the orthodox paradigm of reality. 8
> This process has resulted in contemporary science becoming ensnared
in a very limited view of reality and the nature of the universe. This
position is summed up succinctly by Cornell University professor,
William Provine, who said:
> "... modern science directly implies that the world is organised
strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no
purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no
designing forces that are rationally detectable ..."9
> Now of course, Professor Provine's position is a philosophical one
and is not based on anyempirical evidence and as such is a breach of
the very principles underlying scientific technique. Professor Provine
is entitled to hold and express any philosophical position he so
chooses, but he isnotentitled to imply the philosophical position
expressed above is somehow based on scientific methodology because
"science it ain't". 10
> By defining and adhering to such a proscriptive interpretation of
reality, contemporary 'science' is denying itself the opportunity to
contribute to an extraordinary new chapter in human understanding as
to the nature of reality and who we are.
> Professor Provine's inability to distinguish between 'science' and
'philosophy' is very destructive of true scientific endeavour because
his views as a senior respected scientist clearly affects the thinking
of those who look up to him as their superior. Most scientists, like
the general public, acquire the vast majority of their knowledge and
values on what they are taught by their peers and mentors, and not on
what they personally experience. It is for this reason that Professor
Provine's views are so prevalent within the scientific community and
why so many aspects of science have become moribund.
> So how will Western Science deal with the plethora of 'New Age'
phenomena now being discovered? 11
> If history is anything to go by, the contemporary scientific
community will almost certainly embrace an orthodox position and
embark on a concerted campaign of trenchant denial about 'New Age'
phenomena. However, this is not such a bad thing, as practically all
the major advances in human knowledge and understanding have emanated
from the minds of dissenters who have rejected the orthodox position
of their contemporaries and postulated what were considered heresies
at the time. Presumably, the issues pertaining to the plethora of 'New
Age' phenomena now being discovered (and their wider implications)
will be treated no differently from any new 'heresy'. As with all
matters, eventually the truth will become recognised as "self evident"
and future generations will look back at the position of contemporary
orthodox science in much the same way we now view our ancestors who
fervently believed the earth was flat! 12
> ____________ _______
> NOTE: Article based in part on extracts from:
> * 'The Cosmic Game' by Stanislav Grof (p232 - p235)
> * 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip Johnson (p126)
> ÃÂ
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@ ...>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogro
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 January, 2009 4:16:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
> Dear Joseph
> My views are:
> Yes. But Dawkins is accepting too much (dualism) and rejecting too
little as far as I read him.
> Some info:
> http://www.sirbacon .org/links/ dawkins.html and http://www.fbrt. essays/frameset- essays.html
> But I honestly find http://www.sirbacon .org a quite interesting
> Shakespeare and Sufism.
> http://www.sirbacon .org/mshrew. htm 
> It places the Gurdjieff - Sarmoung Brotherhood in Usbekistan at
Bokhara: http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Bukhara
> -------
> You did not answer my previous e-mails questions, especially not
this one:
> And I keep hearing you agree upon that Alice A. Bailey is political
and not non-political as H. P. Blavatsky and Morya was. Is that true?
> So your silence to this question tells me you do not know the answer.
> M. Sufilight
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Joseph P. Fulton 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogro 
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:29 AM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
> Morten and Cass,
> Thank you very much for your interest. The names mentioned above are
> there to represent an entire point of view, namely the "rational
> materialist" point of view which makes up the prevailing opinion of
> our culture. I hope that clarifies things a bit. Richard Dawkins is
> a prime target, in this case. He forms a great deal of opinion in the
> field of religious studies and evolutionary biology.
> Joe
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogro, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
> <global-theosophy@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear friends and Zaitzev
> > 
> > My views are:
> > I will certainly not quote all the Alice A. Bailey book in an e-mail
> to prove you wrong.
> > Just have a look at the online editions. There are no words about
> them being "first editions".
> > It is you who need to prove it to be otherwise by quoting, what I
> tell you is not there to be found.
> > 
> > Even "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" have had added several footnotes in
> various translations and as far as I hear from others also in the
> online editions.
> > 
> > But why not add, what edition Problems of Humanity is? Why hide it?
> > And I keep hearing you agree upon that Alice A. Bailey is political
> and not non-political as H. P. Blavatsky and Morya was. Is that true?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > M. Sufilight
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: Konstantin Zaitzev 
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogro 
> > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:50 PM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
> > <global-theosophy@ > wrote:
> > 
> > > And ALL of them First editions? I doubt that! 
> > > It is for instance - as far as I am aware - not written anywhere
> > online, that the book "Problems of Humanity" have seen several
> editions..
> > 
> > Doubt isn't enough. Prove that. Some of the books, at least, look like
> > facsimile copies with old typeface, for example "Treatise on cosmic
> > fire". Though I admit that such books as "Problems of Humanity" could
> > be updated as they deal with politics.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter
inbox. Take a look mail/smarterinbo x
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application