Although the scene has been somewhat quiet for a few months now, the debate is likely to heat up again this spring with the release of Ben Stein's new movie "Expelled".

EXPELLED

It is interesting to me how last year's debate polarized as Darwinism vs ID/Creationism, as there was no middle ground to prevent ID being equated with Creationism. It's as if there was no other possibility. Certainly Darwinism (Materialist Secularism) and Creationism (Dogmatic Religion) have huge existing power bases, and no other position does.

The Theosophical story of evolution is a perfect fit as a supporter of Intelligent Design in the debate, but may not have the strength to avoid a repeat of the debate's polarization. The damage may already be too much to undo.

I have not read this, but I should. Maybe Jon, who is more interested in this topic, can review this little booklet.

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunris...-3/sc-wtst3.htm

Hi everybody!

As we all know, Theosophy gives us a third choice to the Creationism-Darwinism debate. I have called our third choice Emanationism. In her recent class, Joy Mills gave us a new term to call the Theosophical third choice: Panentheism.

Here are the terms that were covered:

Agnostic = doubting
Atheistic = no Deity
Pantheistic = seeing God in everything
Panentheism (This is the Theosophical position.) = The essence of matter is the spiritual. Spirit and Matter are the same, they are one. Parabrahm (Adi-Buddhi) is not God but law (Chronological Mahatma Letters, p. 181). Divinity (Avalokiteshvara) is a periodically appearing Deity. Parabrahm is the One Essence from which appears a center of energy (Logos, Ishvar).

(Note: I will also post this in the SD Vol 2 Class thread, as it belongs there too.)

Some modern theosophists (maybe Joy Mills too) think Pan-en-theism (all-in-theos) is theosophy. But HPB taught Pantheism is theosophy.

"But real Theosophy—i.e., the Theosophy that comes to us from the East—is assuredly Pantheism and by no means Theism."

Divinity IS - whether manifested, emanated or not. Theos may be "within" psychologically, because we mortals are not aware of It, so there is that practical form of dualism. Truly speaking though, there is no separation, no within & beyond, just Theos everywhere.

I suppose I would prefer Monism to Pantheism for a choice of terms, but the former term is cold, so HPB may have used Pantheism to emphasize the goodness, livingness - the divinity of Reality.

From Purucker's big online Glossary:

Nicholas,

Both "pantheism" and "panentheism" contain the concept of Theism or divinity, as you have noted. However, Theism seems to only refer to Avalokiteshvara (The Son, The Logos). It seems to me that a truer presentation of Theosophical thinking would involve using a word that refers to the Absolute (not Deity) as the basis of the Theosophical belief system.

I am thinking of going with "Be-ness-ism". (I am also taking a look at "Unthinkable-and-Unspeakable-ism"....)

Nicholas, on a serious note, would you describe the Deity as an emanation from the Absolute?

HPB said there was a difference between Eastern & Western uses of pantheism. The former is impersonal, there is no supreme God or deity. The latter is personal and does have God at the top of it all. One of the ways she defined theosophy or theos-sophia was godly wisdom, not wisdom of God. Since all is matter & all matter is living, with some degree of wisdom, compassion & power as its nature, there is no need to entify it.

Since the One Principle has no true name, being really the Nameless One, I think Monism is better than trying to wedge a modifer expressing some understanding we have into the term. But that is just me.

Will have to think about it some more. But for now, I do not think the Absolute (meaning Parabrahm) emanates. If It is the Law or Nature of All, then to us it is a description of functions, not any thing or mind or energy. Somehow a Logos appears and only with the 2nd or 3rd Logos does emanation take place. So I might guess that Deity (one of or all of those Logoi) emanates deities and the rest of the manifest universe.

Read Subba Row on this subject.

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gita-sr/nbg-hp.htm

Nicholas, I read Will's booklet a couple of years ago, and it is his middle section on "The Excluded Middle" that reinforced my ideas on the potential role Theosophy could have in this debate. I will look through it again and comment on it soon.

Nicholas,

I was just looking at my notes from Joy's class, and she described the beginning as "a focusing of Be-ness, which was the concentration of Light." However, she was referring to the appearance of countless Sparks, not the appearance of the Ray that produced the Sparks. Still, it is fascinating to consider the appearance of Spirit as "a focusing of Be-ness."

Yes, that is neat. It reminds me of a Kabbalistic teaching (by Luria, I think) that manifestation of the universe began with Divinity shrinking & thus a space being made around the point. What shrank or made space or focused could be thought of as Be-ness, so when Be-ness is focused, space remains around it for manifestation.

Speaking of class, did your notes (in 2nd week?) mention anything about the source for the - Buddha was first of this lifewave to become such - reference she made? I have heard it, but not yet found the source.

Nicholas,

Do you mean you are looking for a quote that says Gautama was the first sixth-rounder of our human race?

"(2) But if a 1st-5th round man devoted himself to occultism and became an adept, would he escape further earthly incarnations?

(2) No; if we except Buddha -- a sixth round being, as he had run so successfully the race in his previous incarnations as to outrun even his predecessors [emphasis added]. But then such a man is to be found in a billion of human creatures. He differed from other men as much in his physical appearance as in spirituality and knowledge. Yet even he escaped further reincarnations but on this earth; and, when the last of the sixth round men of the third ring is gone out of this earth, the Great Teacher will have to get reincarnated on the next planet. Only, and since He sacrificed Nirvanic bliss and Rest for the salvation of his fellow creatures He will be re-born in the highest -- the seventh ring of the upper planet. Till then He will overshadow every decimillenium (let us rather say and add "hasovershadowed already" a chosen individual who generally overturned the destinies of nations. See Isis, Vol. I, pp. 34 and 35 last and first para. on the pages)." (Mahatma Letters, Letter 17, TUP Edition, p. 117)

--> Also, K.H. gives a new and fascinating meaning to the phrase Human "Race" -- the idea that were are "racing" to Enlightenment.

No; a quote that says Gautama was the first individual of this human life-wave to become Buddha.

Nicholas,

I checked my notes, but I did not find anything.

It has been a prt of my belief system for decades that Gautama was the first human from our human-wave to become a Buddha, but I do not think I have ever seen that in print.

I went to see Ben Stein's "Expelled" this evening. I found that this movie was not about Intelligent Design as I had expected. But, it did not particularly add to the polarization of the Darwinist vs. Creationist debate as I had feared.

The movie is about the freedom to talk about Intelligent Design, and the reasons why that freedom is in jeopardy. Mr. Stein uses a lot of imagery from WWII, the building of the Berlin Wall and the later tearing down of that wall as a metaphor for the ID controversy.

It does (perhaps unfairly) single out the supporters of the Darwinist point of view as the main threat to that freedom, and spends a bit of time pointing out the Darwinist roots of Nazi eugenics. The opposite polarity of the religious fundamentalists and their refusal to allow good scientific inquiry into nature and its laws is largely ignored. So Ben has obviously picked his side.

I do recommend going out to see this film, as it does make a lot of good points about the dynamics of the controversy surrounding ID.

We were going to see it today, but other matters came up. Probably will wait for the DVD.

I never have had the impression that fundamentalists have objections to "good scientific inquiry". They only object to the sloppy, biased, dogmatic presentation by science & education that there do not exist any serious flaws or problems with evolutionary theory.

By fundamentalists, I was referring to those "6000 year old earth", Genesis as fact, Creationists.

The "the sloppy, biased, dogmatic presentation by science & education" is well covered by the movie.

"I never have had the impression that fundamentalists have objections to 'good scientific inquiry' ".

--> I have. I have closely followed the raging debate in Southern states in the USA. In my humble opinion, the Fundamentalists just do not want to hear it, whether it is good science or bad science.

This is gets back to good, old fashioned debating strategies and techniques. Southern Fundamentalists are excellent at using them.

The TS could also support Darwinism: it may not be necessarily materialist or cosmological, but it makes much sense in the context of biology. For that matter, TS could support creationism, since Hindu astronomy/astrology is accurate, though for Judaism if Abrahamism is separated from Brahmanism, not everyone would agree with symbolic interpretation. Intelligent design is really a mix of both, or is at least theism and Darwinism.

Technically, Theosophy is neither Darwinism nor creationism.

Darwinisn contains the idea that species appear randomly. In contrast, Theosophy says that every aspect of a species is painstakingly designed and guided by its Elemental (Deva?)

Creationism is based on the idea of a Creator. Such an idea does not exist in Theosophy.

Since Theosophy is neither Darwinism nor creationism, I have proposed a new, third designation for Theosophy: emanationism. (Nicholas — another member, not me — had proposed a different word than emanationism, but I forgot what he said.)

Many 'Builders' - Unknown 'Architect'...

I have not read Darwin's texts, but is not much of it about genetics? It is easy to say the elemental/deva controls genes (or morphogenetic fields!) in response to stimuli.

The architect creates the plan[s;] the builders create the form[s.]

I like 'emanationism' and 'panentheism' better than 'creationism' & 'intelligent design,' of which one would need both to describe reality as well as Theosophy. Panentheism is not panendeism, so the former implies emanation, but I would like to know what Nicholas said.