Theosophy and science

[Nabil Naser]

Let us get serious

What does Theosophy has to do with science?
Or, in a different way, how does theosophy fit in with human reality

We can do this

[Katinka Hesselink]

Since there is ONE ultimate reality, what's true in each of our theosophy's will end up squaring with science in the end. HOWEVER in the meantime both science and our own understanding of theosophy will change - so they may well seem to disagree.

I do think that true theosophists can't deny the real contributions to knowledge by science. But there are, thankfully also theosophists willing to go into depth into both and find ways to unite the two here and now. Amit Goswami for instance.

[Nabil Naser]

Dear Katinka

You write "thankfully also theosophists willing to go into depth into both and find ways to unite the two here and now"

Welcome to my world.
Theosophy is connected to science by the words and symbols that it insists are important.
My job is to show the world how these numbers, symbols, and their associations and importance throughout history is connected directly to our most advanced scientific theory.
In order to understand how this could be so, one has to know about scientific theory as well as theosophy.
I can yell all day my new discoveries, but you will never understand if you hear them as a strange and foreign language.

Theosophy is not only connected to science, it is also connected to human history, social behavior, and the human evolution. But I say, lets take one thing at a time.

[Jack Donaldson]

I don't understand the issue. For my part it seems Theosophy already iterates man as utilizing a triune manner of approaching reality; science, philosophy and religion. I only see instances of people like HPB, and Gottfried de Purucker, illustrations on their writings of the countless instances of dogma existing within all three of them. Purucker picked apart Einstein's relativity theory pretty good. I'm not saying he invalidated it completely, but he pointed out a couple of flaws.

Nineteenth century average man, possessed religious doctrine which the current science of that time adequately discredited, while at the same time, this same science was not at a continuity of solution by any means. I'm speaking of the European average man, and I'm also pointing out the conflicting state of being this describes concerning them. But... there is also one undeniable quality also noted among them by the time the twentieth century arrived; they possessed for the most part, a good measure of impersonal love. Not the sentimental emotional love, but simply an unselfconscious regard for the welfare of another. Any form of love which is the emotional sentimental type is selfish, but allowed, for my part anyway:> However, I also suspect it is an expression emanating from an unbalanced individual. I don't have any strong stance on this position... so simply see it as feathers on a wing caught as a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of the eye.

It appears to me at times, that I use a public forum as a manner of practicing the art of placing thoughts to words in the most artful manner I can muster. I hope it is not a bother to anyone.

[Nabil Naser]

Dear Jack

No one is bothered by art, Some may not understand it, but they are not bothered by it.
As far as Theosophy and science, we; who claim to know a bit about theosophy, use big words.
We talk about lower and higher minds. We claim that Theosophy teaches love and acceptance of others. We also say that we need to be always looking for answers, from what was written, and what we read and write today.

Theosophy from my point of view is a path that one chooses. It represents an idea that there is a connection between human societies that is represented in the words they read and the symbols and things that they create.

If this path is the right one, then it must also connect with science; the most powerful engine of reality today.
I think that it is possible to show how the ancient words of scripture, and the recent writings of Madam Blavatsky "who I credit as the pioneer and originator of theosophy", can be connected to science as we know it today.

The numbers used in the Stanza's of Dyzan for example, or the many. many associations the Madam had made to the number 7, can be shown to relate to fundamental principle of nature, without which man can not be.

[Svaha]

One must first be aware of the variations of science. For along with the physical sciences, are the esoteric/metaphysical sciences. The analytical mind that rejects that which is not quantifiable, that views reality as only that which can be ascertained by the material planes alone, might believe the two camps of science to be mutually exclusive. They are not.

[Nabil Naser]

Yo Write
"One must first be aware of the variations of science. For along with the physical sciences, are the esoteric/metaphysical sciences. The analytical mind that rejects that which is not quantifiable, that views reality as only that which can be ascertained by the material planes alone, might believe the two camps of science to be mutually exclusive. They are not."

The analytical mind is all we have to work with. Sure, I can meditate and experience different realities, but these realities are not quantifiable, with all due respect to those who tried to give them measure.
We are left with what we know and are conscious of. This must be the path towards explaining sciences that are not apparent today. We have been given hints by what I would call "angels of wisdom". Lets not think of these hints as rules to live by and to define reality with.

[Jack Donaldson]

I think Nabil and Svaha are actually in near agreement. In physics there are many postulations and formulas that are metaphysical in that they are 'agreed upon or accepted positions' used in order to arrive at solution... Scientific dogma.

I found this definition of logic and thought it important.

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/lo-lz.htm
Logic An attempt to formulate the processes of the ratiocinative mind, connecting idea with idea in a causal sequence, leading from predicate to conclusion. When the predicate consists of axioms, the species of logic is called deductive, or reasoning from the general to the particular; when the predicate is facts of experience, the logic is called inductive, or proceeding from particulars to generals. As a means of arriving at truth it alone is quite unreliable, as it is but a body of rules based on human experiences, and hence it is often rather a means of justifying conclusions after they have already been formed. This unreliability arises both from the difficulty of applying the process with rigid precision, and also from the uncertainty of the predicates in both systems. A study of what is written on logic will show that there is no agreement as to what constitutes an axiom -- whether it is an intuitive perception of truth, or whether it is merely an inference from experience. The same uncertainty exists as to the validity of the assumptions from which inductive chains of reasoning are drawn.

The Greek Skeptics and Pyrrhonists demonstrate that rigid logic leads to contradictory conclusions (antinomies), a fact which led them to doubt the efficacy of the mentality as a means of ascertaining truth. A strictly logical system may be found in pure mathematics, where we lay down axioms and postulates, which are to be treated as not open to question; and then proceed by rigid rules to the inevitable conclusion. But what is possible in an ideal science is not possible in an actual world of infinite variety and fluidity. Theosophy places the subject in a different light, because it recognizes the existence in man of powers of direct cognition by the awakened faculties of buddhi. Thus man has the means of a true deductive system; but even so, deduction must be considered together with induction, analogy, and other methods, as merely one of the various means by which we arrive at a knowledge of truth.

[Nabil Naser]

I have to be honest and tell you that I have been drinking tonight, and my writings may appear clearer than before.
We are questioning the reality of Theosophy, right?
If Theosophy can't proof itself connected to reality as science describes it, then it must be ways of the path of truth. Science is as real as reality can be. Any concept suggesting understanding or explaining reality must accept reality as we know it. Simple enough?
Theosophy and science must be connected in order for theosophy to be taken seriously.
I believe that it can be done, and perhaps much easier than we think.
But what do you do, when it proves to be true?

[Jack Donaldson]

Nabil, in your original post you wrote:

What does Theosophy has to do with science?
Or, in a different way, how does theosophy fit in with human reality

In your last post you wrote:

Theosophy and science must be connected in order for theosophy to be taken seriously.
I believe that it can be done, and perhaps much easier than we think.
But what do you do, when it proves to be true?

So first you said science is human reality, and last that it proves to be true.
I've concluded men of science such as Sir Isaac Newton and Nikola Tesla were primarily interested in esoteric studies. The first was using Egyptian and Alchemy paths toward the attainment of the Philosophers Stone, and I am likely incorrect in describing his precise directions taken, I'm certain only that the esoteric was primary study. Tesla utilized the Sanskrit as his esoteric study. Both are known however, for their physical science contributions.

Philosophy and religion seem to behave like sciences often in history, as can be noted quite often. They even behave like governments quite often in history.

All three can be described as dogmatic quite often throughout history. If two individuals perceive and conceive precisely the same, their is no distinction and there are no longer two individuals, only one. When is this appropriate? If a distinctive individualism has ever been recorded in the Alaya, it is never forgotton. How about the Akasha? I don't think I'm certain, I've never made it past two, the wise owl says three, yes, it takes three.

[Nabil Naser]

yes, it takes three; before the light

All particles, including the Tau, were created before the visible light

I do enjoy the complexity of your thoughts

[Svaha]

Highly recommended reading...

"The Marriage of Sense and Soul" by Ken Wilber

[Nabil Naser]

I wish that you would tell me what you think
Rather than asking me to guess

You know the information. Tell me what it is. Don't worry too much about being perceived as wrong.
Time is of essence. Say it like it is.

Do not be afraid of sharing what you believe to be the truth
Do not worry about the audience too much
Everyday is a new play, with new audience

Love
Nabil