Hello All !

Madame Blavatsky said that her works demand profs and she urged the people to seek for those profs/facts. (like the things she wrote in the Secret Doctrine for example).

More then a 100 years have passed since she died, I wonder - what profs/facts to her words did we found ?


Religion is based on belief, the history and facts actually contradict many of the Bibles stories, so all you have left with is a belief.
Madame Blavatsky was against religion and seeker of truth as you all know, ""There Is No Religion Higher than Truth" , but were is the truth ?

How can we know/check out that was is written in the Secret Doctrine for example - is the truth ?
How can we prove without a doubt that there is a soul, god (higher entity), angels, "humans creation process", karma etc... ?

I believe in all of those things, but it I have no prof of them except the stories people tell on T.V shows (like Beyond a Chance for example).

Could it be that after more then 100 years since the books were written and the author died we still couldn't find a single prof of her words ?


Views: 306

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

One of HPB's gurus wrote something like "astronomers will hear stars before they see them."  That prophecy from the 1880s came true with the invention of radio astronomy.

On the metaphysical: "proof without a doubt" is in the mind of the beholder.  Mystics, occultists and spiritually inclined folk have had confidence in these higher non-physical realms for ages.

The simplest way to cut this Gordian knot of proof, for oneself & others, is to gain confidence that man has deeper aspects to the mind that can perceive accurately soul, angels, etc.  That surety will gradually increase as we get familiar, through meditation, as a race, with the higher ranges of our mind.

I understand that it's very problematic to prove that many of her writing are real, in that sense it's no different than the bible - it's just a nice story with no prof.


But I'm sure that I've read somewhere that Madame Blavatsky said that we should try to prove her "theories", were there any attempts to do so ? what we have managed to prove so far and what currently is being done (resource or science) to prove her other "theories" ?



Greetings and good wishes, Maxim and all.

From my "Using Theosophy to Clean-Up Your House or Apartment":


[Theosophy, useful or not, is the knowledge or wisdom that is philosophically allowed, or is at least being seriously considered, which is not based on empirical science, sensory experience, or mental operation. Theosophy, used in this epistemological sense, should probably always have a capital T because it is associated with “Divine” or “Undifferentiated” Consciousness (Self, “I,” Atman, Purusa, etc.), the increasing human experience and/or awareness of Which (Degree of Self-awareness) is thought to improve personal intuition, the fundamental generator of Theosophy (and the “screener” of established doctrines and teachings purporting to be valid Theosophy).


Unfortunately, Theo-sectarians over the years have succeeded in making “the writings of H.P.Blavatsky” perhaps an even more famous second dictionary definition for the term Theosophy. This has not been so good for its first and more inclusive definition. Indeed, the “T=HPB Party” within the Theosophical Society may have just diverted important attention away from everyone’s Basic Potential for cultivating a very special variety of knowledge and wisdom. This is regrettable, particularly since no Masters, Mahatmas, or even Blavatskyan Motherlodes/Mother’s-loads-and-loads are needed for this personally rewarding enterprise.


Epistemologically speaking, Theosophy can be of two types: Macrocosmic and Microcosmic. The former deals with very large, often abstract, overarching, distant things like the nature of the Soul/soul, occult evolution of the cosmos and humanity, reincarnation, karma, etc.—subjects which usually do not lend themselves to being proven or disproven by material science or validated by personal experience (i.e., most would not pass Karl Popper’s “Falsifiability Test” and therefore not be considered as proper subjects for “scientific” investigation).


Whereas many Theosophists consider at least some Macrocosmic Theosophy to be 100% reliable (especially if they believe that it has been “received” from preternatural Authorities like HPB’s Masters, for example), there is perhaps an increasing number of Theosophers who are comfortable with the possibility that much of the “Quest” may just produce “ever-stronger attractions” toward certain translifetime and other “recondite realities”. . . rather than result in old-time-religious certainties—complete with minute details—about subjects so far off in space, time, and dimension.


While there may be a fair number of Theosophists who experience an oxymoronic “slightly nervous 100% leap-of-faith confidence” in something like HPB’s assertion that the average “rest interval” between re-births is 1,000 to 1,500 years, many Theosophers might prefer to “withhold judgment” about such detailed esoteric information. They may simply continue their studies and investigations without any nervousness, but rather in a style of “peaceful, pleasant curiosity” . . . especially, of course, if they have somewhere along the line become, perhaps as the result of meditative practice, 51% intuitively persuaded or “at least very suspicious” that there may actually be such a thing as reincarnation—whatever it might be like—after all.


Thus, for many Theosophers, as it was for the Apostle Paul, it is not cock-sure understanding and articulation of everything from Alpha to Omega which is most important; rather, it is the “[intuitive] peace which [sur]passeth [mere] understanding” which is most important. As the writer Eric Weiner once described some impressive Icelanders, quite a few Theosophers may also occupy the “valuable real estate between not believing and not not believing.”]

You're right Paul an special and interesting feature of Mahatmas-Blavatsky corpus is that its statements are (in scientific matters) highly falsifiable (in the popperian-like sense), i. e. generally speaking the rethoric of people engaged in the spread of spiritual lineages or schools is agree with science, but HPB disagree in many specifical points, with a consistent argumentation. Of course, she can be wrong, but she don't just said: "Theosophy agrees with science about the matter of geological eras", but on the contrary, she said why the science of her time was wrong and what are the correct data. So, it is more easy make a research and see if she was wrong than wirh others exponents.

K. Paul Johnson said:

Metaphysical claims are inherently problematic, because there's no objective standard of what constitutes evidence for them.  (Many might claim to have experienced metaphysical evidence, but...)  However, there are also historical claims made by HPB and in many cases evidence is abundant.  E.g. her remark to Charles Johnston that she had known "adepts of many races, from Northern and Southern India, Tibet, Persia, China, Egypt; of various European nations, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, English; of certain races of South America."  Of course no one can find intrinsic evidence that any of her associates "really were adepts" in some metaphysical sense.  But there is surely extrinsic evidence that many of them were recognized as such in various lineages and that most of the abovenamed nationalities were included in her associates that were so perceived.
Interesting article. (yesterday's news in the New York Times)
Also read the paper challenging its methodology.
One of its more humorous points is that if psi even slightly existed all casinos in the world would be long bankrupt.
I'm no scientist--in fact mathematics is one of the main reasons I never finished college. But the very little popular science with which I'm acquainted seems to mirror much of what's presented in The Secret Doctine. That is, string theory, relativity, genetics, big bang theory, etc. seem if not to directly corroborate Blavatsky and her associates, to at least not contradict them. Even evolutionary theory seems to be moving rather slowly in the right direction. I think it would be a worthy project to go through chapter by chapter of Isis and SD for everything history or science-related and compare with the latest data, via wikipedia. I'm not ready to take it on myself right now...maybe later.

Greetings, Nicholas, and good wishes.

Your contribution below was very interesting.  If you should run across the exact source, I would appreciate learning of it.  (I am wondering whether or not "hearing stars" might be a reference to Pythagoras's "Music of the Spheres" and/or the "Divine Sound" (Shabd) rather than a scientific prediction.)


Anyway, while I am at it, here is another little selection from "Using Theosophy to Clean-Up Your House or Apartment":


[However, to accomplish full objective verification of Microcosmic Theosophy might not be so easy. Indeed, its “experiments” could be especially vulnerable to the syllogistic error which can sometimes compromise even conventional science:


[A] If Tennessee Williams wrote HAMLET, it is likely to be a good play; [B] It is determined that HAMLET is a good play; [C] Therefore, Tennessee Williams wrote HAMLET. [A] If my hypothesis/understanding is valid, my experiment is likely to have a certain outcome; [B] It is determined that there is a certain outcome; [C] Therefore, my hypothesis/understanding is valid.


[[[A] If HPB's "Masters" were in possession of reliable preternatural knowledge, it is likely that a prediction of Theirs would be accurate; [B] It is determined that a prediction was accurate; [C] Therefore HPB's Masters were in possession of reliable preternatural knowledge.]]]


Ironically, then, Theosophers frequently need new intuitions in order to try to verify the objective semi-verifications of their older intuitions. . . .


Not surprisingly, mention of this “circle-game” can be annoying to those who prefer to crawl on worshipful hands and knees toward well-established Theosophical writings. It suggests that—unless the teaching or “doctrine” involves some untouchable, super-abstract, tautological pronouncement like “All is an interrelated, interdependent whole”—not only Microcosmic but also Macrocosmic Theosophy may have a very difficult time ever escaping from the not-quite-so-glorious “Land of Working Hypotheses.” For many Theosophers, however, this might not be such a great concern, provided, of course, that their working hypotheses continue to become more polished, explanatory, and/or practically useful.]

Nicholas Weeks said:

One of HPB's gurus wrote something like "astronomers will hear stars before they see them."  That prophecy from the 1880s came true with the invention of radio astronomy.

Richard - the source was the Mahatma Letters pp. 169-70 (2nd edition):  The Brother was writing about Edison's "tasimeter" and wrote  "Science will hear sounds from certain planets before she sees them. This is a prophecy."  The context makes clear that both stars & planets that are not visible will be discovered by modifications of the optical telescopes then in exclusive use.


Richard Ihle said:

Greetings, Nicholas, and good wishes.

Your contribution below was very interesting.  If you should run across the exact source, I would appreciate learning of it.  (I am wondering whether or not "hearing stars" might be a reference to Pythagoras's "Music of the Spheres" and/or the "Divine Sound" (Shabd) rather than a scientific prediction.)



Nicholas Weeks said:

One of HPB's gurus wrote something like "astronomers will hear stars before they see them."  That prophecy from the 1880s came true with the invention of radio astronomy.



Hello Brothers and Sisters!


I do have a thought that came into my mind while reading your post Maxim. "Those who know keep silent."


I agree with you--where is the proof; would we recognize it if we saw it?




Great post!


Thanks Maxim

Karl Popper said that paranormal claims aren't falsifiable therefore can't be science. I don't agree with him personally but some people might use that against the argument that Theosophism is a science.

Hello to Maxim and All


"There the eye goes not,

Speech goes not, nor the mind.

We know not, we understand not

How one would teach it."    (Upanishads)


In the Secret Doctrine: Conclusion, we find;

"But when it becomes undeniably proven that the claim of the modern Asiatic nations to a Secret Science and an esoteric history of the world is based on fact; that though hitherto unknown to the masses and a veiled mystery even to the learned - because they have never had the key to a right understanding of the abundant hints thrown out by the ancient classics....that there do exist mysteries behind the veil which are unreachable without a new key, is borne out by too many proofs to be easily dismissed.."

"A new key" she says. If we continue to look for proof in the same old materialistic fashion only, we will be forever banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall. Much of Theosophy deals with varying states of consciousness and as Dr.I.K.Taimni puts it in his 'Science and Occultism';

"Mind and consciosness are subjective realities which cannot be observed and investigated by objective methods and therefore Science brings forward the excuse that its methods are objective and it therefore confines itself to purely objective methods. But what about the subtler worlds which are hidden within the physical world?....with regard to the existence of these worlds what has Science done to investigate whether such worlds do actually exist, and if they exist, what is their nature? Absolutely nothing. To say that these superphysical worlds do not exist because they cannot be observed with physical apparatus is obviously irrational. It shows that modern scientists have assumed and decided that such worlds cannot and do not exist and therefore lay down impossible conditions for their investigation as an excuse for doing nothing.

The fact probably is that most scientists fear, in their heart of hearts, that the whole structure of scientific thought based arbitrarily upon a purely materialistic philosophy will come tumbling down the day the existence of these superphysical worlds is established beyond doubt, and mind and consciousness are definitely proved to be independent realities in existence. It is this fear which lurks behind the imposing facade of scientific attitude that is really responsible for the fact that they are not prepared even to look at all these superphysical matters."  And this coming from a professor of chemistry!

Dr. Taimni would have been pleased to see some of the recent investigations into these subtle realms of nature, many of which you can read about in Dean Radin PH.D.'s 'The Conscious Universe'. (Also see his talk at the Theosophy Hall, New York; 'Entangled Minds')

Many great scientists have recognized the role of mind and consciousness. It is a well known fact that many of the great scientific discoveries have come from dreams or visions experienced by the scientist/discoverer, or simply an intuitive knowingness. Einstein being a classic example of this.

Fritjof Capra offers some quotes in his brilliant 'The Toa of Physics';

"For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory..(we must turn) to those kinds of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like the Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence."  Niels Bohr

"The general notions about human understanding...which are illustrated by discoveries in atomic physics are not in the nature of things wholly unheard of, or new. Even in our own culture they have a history, and in Buddhist and Hindu thought a more considerable and central place. What we shall find is an exemplification, an encouragement, and a refinement of old wisdom."  Julius Robert Oppenheimer

"The great scientific contribution in theoretical physics that has come from Japan since the last war may be an indication of a certain relationship between philosophical ideas in the tradition of the Far East and the philosophical substance of quantum theory."  Werner Heisenberg


To me the real proof/fact of H.P.B.'s words, as you put it Maxim, are in my own experience of life. The overwhelming sense of interconnectedness with nature I often feel, the Cosmic Laws which can become apparent in day to day living such as cyclicity, cause and effect etc., and above all that "Compassion is the Law of Laws"(The Voice of the Silence) becomes a no brainer. Ask yourself if you would rather be loved or hated.


All the best,

Nigel Healy


I don't mean this, I'm trying to remark the difference between a general statement, or a rethoric of coinciding with scientific community, and a rethoric of make some very definite statements, this is the quality of falsifiable. From a epistethemological point of view, I think, such statement must include a metodological one about to put in test such statement.

In Mahatmas Letters there are some examples, and in the SD.

I'm not saying that are true but are punctual and precise, not vague.


Paul said:

Karl Popper said that paranormal claims aren't falsifiable therefore can't be science. I don't agree with him personally but some people might use that against the argument that Theosophism is a science.


Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


Theosophy References

Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2024   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service