Evidence Confirming Theosophy ? - Theosophy.Net2024-03-29T07:58:23Zhttps://theosophy.net/forum/topics/evidence-confirming-theosophy?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A36269&feed=yes&xn_auth=nohttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4…tag:theosophy.net,2011-06-04:3055387:Comment:543152011-06-04T14:35:27.705ZJ. Spencer Richhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JSpencerRich
<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42072469/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/lost-city-atlantis-believed-found-spain/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42072469/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/lost-city-atlantis-believed-found-spain/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I daresay that these two finds corrobrate quite a lot of info from Isis and SD.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42072469/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/lost-city-atlantis-believed-found-spain/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42072469/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/lost-city-atlantis-believed-found-spain/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I daresay that these two finds corrobrate quite a lot of info from Isis and SD.</p> As I read and reread your que…tag:theosophy.net,2011-01-07:3055387:Comment:363872011-01-07T19:27:14.771ZJerry Hejka-Ekinshttps://theosophy.net/profile/JerryHejkaEkins407
<p>As I read and reread your question, I become more and more aware that behind its rather straight forward appearance, are underlying questions that would first have to be addressed and agreed upon. These questions range from difficult philosophical issues like What constitutes proof for whom? and, The difference between knowledge and belief, to more straight forward questions like: What was Blavatsky trying to prove in her writings? Unfortunately a discussion on any of these will raise a…</p>
<p>As I read and reread your question, I become more and more aware that behind its rather straight forward appearance, are underlying questions that would first have to be addressed and agreed upon. These questions range from difficult philosophical issues like What constitutes proof for whom? and, The difference between knowledge and belief, to more straight forward questions like: What was Blavatsky trying to prove in her writings? Unfortunately a discussion on any of these will raise a variety of opinions. So perhaps "proof" and what is being proven or not proven is in the eye of the beholder after all. Even in the realm of modern science, truth is an abstract thing. Its methodology is indeed designed to pursue truth. Thus its theories are in a constant state of change in order to accommodate new information. Accordingly, even science cannot deal with "truth" or "proof" in any ultimate sense. Rather, the best that modern scientific method can offer is in those rare cases where they can identify and mathematically define "laws" of nature. Such as the "law of gravity," which Isaac Newton was able to capture in a mathematical formula. But a true scientist cannot in good conscience speak of "Truth" and those so called "proofs" come and go as the data changes, theories are modified, discarded, or replaced. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Blavatsky too did often address these philosophical and practical questions of truth, belief and certainty throughout her writings. Her article "What is Truth?" comes to mind, where she makes some fine distinctions between many kinds of truths: i.e. personal truths, collectively accepted truths, philosophical truths, divine Truth etc. The latter part of Isis Unveiled also has a discourse where she argues for "certainty" that is gained through the trial and error of human experience. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the other hand, in 1988 I did write an article for Sunrise magazine this does address your question, i think in the spirit you asked it. You may find the article on the Theosophical University Press wedbsite:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/38-88-9/th-sdek.htm">http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/38-88-9/th-sdek.htm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Please let me know if you find this article helpful. If so, I look forward to discussing the matter further with you. </p> I don't mean this, I'm trying…tag:theosophy.net,2011-01-07:3055387:Comment:363582011-01-07T13:55:52.464ZLeila Becquerhttps://theosophy.net/profile/LeilaBecquer
<p><br></br>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.</p>
<p>In Mahatmas Letters there are some examples, and in the SD.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that are true but are punctual and…</p>
<p><br/>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.</p>
<p>In Mahatmas Letters there are some examples, and in the SD.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that are true but are punctual and precise, not vague.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><cite>Paul said:</cite></p>
<blockquote><div>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.</div>
</blockquote> Hello to Maxim and All
"The…tag:theosophy.net,2011-01-07:3055387:Comment:363432011-01-07T06:00:33.271ZNigel Healyhttps://theosophy.net/profile/NigelHealy
<p>Hello to Maxim and All</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"There the eye goes not,</p>
<p>Speech goes not, nor the mind.</p>
<p>We know not, we understand not</p>
<p>How one would teach it." (Upanishads)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the Secret Doctrine: Conclusion, we find;</p>
<p>"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…</p>
<p>Hello to Maxim and All</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"There the eye goes not,</p>
<p>Speech goes not, nor the mind.</p>
<p>We know not, we understand not</p>
<p>How one would teach it." (Upanishads)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the Secret Doctrine: Conclusion, we find;</p>
<p>"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.."</p>
<p>"A new key" she says. If we continue to look for proof in the same old materialistic fashion <span style="text-decoration: underline;">only</span>, 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';</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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')</p>
<p>Many great scientists <em>have</em> 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.</p>
<p>Fritjof Capra offers some quotes in his brilliant 'The Toa of Physics';</p>
<p>"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</p>
<p>"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</p>
<p>"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</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>All the best,</p>
<p>Nigel Healy</p>
<p> </p> Karl Popper said that paranor…tag:theosophy.net,2011-01-07:3055387:Comment:363282011-01-07T02:27:06.317ZPaulhttps://theosophy.net/profile/Paul
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.
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 Brothers and Sisters!
…tag:theosophy.net,2011-01-06:3055387:Comment:363152011-01-06T23:16:34.255ZHeidi Ann Maycrofthttps://theosophy.net/profile/HeidiAnnMaycroft
<p>Hello Brothers and Sisters!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I do have a thought that came into my mind while reading your post Maxim. "Those who know keep silent."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree with you--where is the proof; would we recognize it if we saw it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Um</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Great post!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks Maxim</p>
<p>Hello Brothers and Sisters!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I do have a thought that came into my mind while reading your post Maxim. "Those who know keep silent."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree with you--where is the proof; would we recognize it if we saw it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Um</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Great post!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks Maxim</p> Richard - the source was the…tag:theosophy.net,2011-01-06:3055387:Comment:363132011-01-06T22:40:04.940ZNicholas Weekshttps://theosophy.net/profile/NicholasWeeks
<p>Richard - the source was the <em>Mahatma Letters</em> 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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><cite>Richard Ihle said:…</cite></p>
<p>Richard - the source was the <em>Mahatma Letters</em> 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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><cite>Richard Ihle said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.theosophy.net/forum/topics/evidence-confirming-theosophy?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A36290&xg_source=msg_com_forum#3055387Comment36308"><div><p>Greetings, Nicholas, and good wishes.</p>
<p>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" (<em>Shabd</em>) rather than a scientific prediction.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[....]</p>
<p><cite>Nicholas Weeks said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.theosophy.net/forum/topics/evidence-confirming-theosophy?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A36272&xg_source=activity#3055387Comment36265"><div><p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote> Greetings, Nicholas, and good…tag:theosophy.net,2011-01-06:3055387:Comment:363082011-01-06T21:50:01.400ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p>Greetings, Nicholas, and good wishes.</p>
<p>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" (<em>Shabd</em>) rather than a scientific prediction.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway, while I am at it, here is another little selection from "Using Theosophy to Clean-Up Your House or…</p>
<p>Greetings, Nicholas, and good wishes.</p>
<p>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" (<em>Shabd</em>) rather than a scientific prediction.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway, while I am at it, here is another little selection from "Using Theosophy to Clean-Up Your House or Apartment":</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[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:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[[[<em>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.</em>]]]</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ironically, then, Theosophers frequently need new intuitions in order to try to verify the objective semi-verifications of their older intuitions. . . .</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.]</p>
<p><br/> <cite>Nicholas Weeks said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.theosophy.net/forum/topics/evidence-confirming-theosophy?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A36272&xg_source=activity#3055387Comment36265"><div><p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote> I'm no scientist--in fact mat…tag:theosophy.net,2011-01-06:3055387:Comment:363062011-01-06T21:47:49.186ZJ. Spencer Richhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JSpencerRich
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 <em>The Secret Doctine.</em> 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…
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 <em>The Secret Doctine.</em> 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. Interesting article. (yesterd…tag:theosophy.net,2011-01-06:3055387:Comment:363012011-01-06T19:47:31.979ZGovert Schullerhttps://theosophy.net/profile/GovertSchuller
<div>Interesting article. (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?_r=1&hp" target="_blank">yesterday's news</a> in the New York Times)</div>
<div>Also read the paper challenging its methodology.</div>
<div>See: <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018886/Bem6.pdf" target="_blank">Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data: The Case of Psi</a></div>
<div>One of its more humorous points is that if psi even slightly existed all casinos in the world would…</div>
<div>Interesting article. (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?_r=1&hp">yesterday's news</a> in the New York Times)</div>
<div>Also read the paper challenging its methodology.</div>
<div>See: <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018886/Bem6.pdf" target="_blank">Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data: The Case of Psi</a></div>
<div>One of its more humorous points is that if psi even slightly existed all casinos in the world would be long bankrupt.</div>