Quest Magazine

Printed in the  Winter 2020  issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation:  Ravindra, Ravi, "Yoga and the Future Science of Consciousness" Quest 108:1, pg 12-16 

By Ravi Ravindra

Who am I? Whence is this widespread cosmic flux?
These, the wise should inquire into diligently
            Soon—nay, now.
                                                                        —Mahopanishad 4.21

Am I primarily a body that has, in response to accidental, material forces and laws, produced a mind with both self-consciousness and consciousness of other people and things? Or am I essentially something else—variously called spirit, soul, Self, Brahman, God, Buddha mind, the Very Person—who has taken on both body and mind as an instrument for action, love, and delight in the world? Does the body have consciousness, or does consciousness have the body? Can the body exist without consciousness, and can consciousness exist without bodily functions?

It is quite clear how yoga and other spiritual disciplines respond to these questions. One of the fundamental assertions in yoga is that the true knower is not the mind. The real knower—called purusha, the Very Person—knows through the mind, not with the mind (see Ravindra, “Yoga”). As William Blake wrote, “I see not with the eyes but through the eyes.”

At issue is a hierarchy of levels of being, and therefore of consciousness, within a person, as well as the nature of the person. For this reason, every spiritual tradition regards “Who am I?” as the fundamental human question. As a contemporary Zen master in Korea, Chulwoong Sunim, said to me, “Who am I?” is the most essential and comprehensive koan.

This is also a basic question about the nature of the cosmos, for we are not apart from it, nor can we have any certainty about the nature and validity of what we know about the cosmos without having some clarity of what in us knows and how it knows. The Psalmist asks, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” (Psalm 8:3–4).

The responses of contemporary science lie on the other side. One heuristic principle in particular interferes with the knowledge of a radically different and higher level. This concept enters as the Copernican principle in astronomy and cosmology and as the principle of uniformitarianism in geology and biology: one has to do with space and the other with time. According to the former, the universe as a whole is homogeneous and isotropic: the same laws of physics operate everywhere. The latter principle essentially says that the same laws and forces have operated in the past as in the present.

Consequently, scientific laws are believed to apply universally, in all regions of space, and throughout all periods of time. By this thesis, the materials and laws on other planets and galaxies, and in past and future times, can be studied in terms of the laws, materials, and forces known to us now on earth.

Neither of these principles—however successful from a scientific point of view—has anything to say about levels of consciousness (Ravindra, “Experience”). But they have led to a denial of any radical difference, not only in terms of space and time, but also in terms of levels of being among humans. They also subtly preclude knowing anything above the level of the mind by doing away with the analogical and symbolic modes of thinking, according to which a fully developed person could internally mirror the various levels of the external cosmos. 

A Science of Consciousness Requires Transformed Scientists

When ancient and medieval thinkers in Europe, China, and India, in their sciences of alchemy, astronomy, and cosmology, spoke of different planets having different materials and different laws, they meant at least in part that various levels of being or consciousness have different laws.

From this perspective, higher consciousness cannot be understood in terms of, or by, a lower consciousness. The subtler and higher aspects of the cosmos can be understood only by the subtler and higher levels within humans. True knowledge is obtained by participation and fusion of the knower with the object of study, and the scientist is required to become higher in order to understand higher things. As St. Paul said, things of the mind can be understood by the mind; things of the spirit by the spirit. The ancient Indian texts say that only by becoming Brahman can one know Brahman. The Gandharva Tantra says that “no one who is not himself divine can successfully worship divinity.” For Parmenides and for Plotinus, “to be and to know are one and the same” (Parmenides, Diels frag. 185; Plotinus, Enneads, 6.9).

This has implications for any future science of higher consciousness that would hope to relate with what is real. Such a science would have to be esoteric, not in the sense of being an exclusive possession of some privileged group, but in speaking of qualities that are less obvious and more subtle. Such a science would both demand and assist the preparation, integration, and attunement of the scientist’s body, mind, and heart so that they would be able to participate in the vision revealed by higher consciousness. In the felicitous phrase of Meister Eckhart, one needs to be “fused and not confused.” “There, insight is naturally truth-bearing,” says Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras (1.48–49; 2.15; 3.54).

This preparation is needed in order to open the third eye, for the two familiar eyes do not correspond to the higher vision. It is only the third that can see the hidden Sun, for, as Plotinus says, “to any vision must be brought an eye adapted to what is to be seen, and having some likeness to it. Never did the eye see the sun unless it had first become sunlike, and never can the soul have vision of the First Beauty unless itself be beautiful” (Plotinus, Enneads, 1.6.9).

The important lesson here for any future science of consciousness is the importance of knowledge by identity. We cannot remain separate and detached if we wish to understand. Rather we need to participate in and be one with what we wish to understand. Thus Meister Eckhart: “Why does my eye recognize the sky, and why do not my feet recognize it? Because my eye is more akin to heaven than my feet. Therefore my soul must be divine if it is to recognize God” (in Klostermaier, 533n.). Similarly Goethe:

If the eye were not sensitive to the sun,
It could not perceive the sun.
If God’s own power did not lie within us,
How could the divine enchant us?

In the well-nigh universal traditional idea of correspondence between the human being and the cosmos—the microcosm-macrocosm homology—it is easily forgotten that this idea does not apply to every human being. Only the fully developed person (mahapurusha) is said to mirror the whole cosmos. Such developed persons are quite rare. The idea of inner levels of being (or of consciousness) is absolutely central, as is the question of “What is a person?” It is difficult to believe that we can dispense with spiritual disciplines for transforming human consciousness by developing concepts or instruments from lower levels of consciousness.

Nevertheless, there is a ubiquitous unwillingness to accept the need for radical transformation or subjecting oneself to a spiritual discipline. Even when the idea of transformation has some appeal, often one wishes to be transformed without changing—without a renunciation of what one now is and with an attitude of “Lord, save me while I stay as I am.”

Moreover, it is not possible to come to a higher state of consciousness without coming to a higher state of conscience. The general scholarly bias tends to be towards a study of various levels of consciousness—which are much more often spoken of in the Indic traditions—and not so much towards various levels of conscience, which are more frequently elaborated in the biblical traditions. It would be difficult to make much sense of Dante’s Divine Comedy without an appreciation of levels of conscience. In many languages, such as Spanish, French, and Sanskrit, the word for both conscience and consciousness is the same. This fact alone should alert us to the possibility of an intimate connection between the two. The awakening of conscience is the feeling preparation for an enhancement of consciousness.

The Future Was and Is

Time has a different sense and meaning in different states of consciousness, and an essential feature of high levels of consciousness is a sense of timelessness, or the simultaneity of all time. The remark of Jesus Christ, “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8), that “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58), indicates the freedom from time sequence that is characteristic of high states of consciousness. Such states correspond to levels which are “eternal” (which is not the same as “everlasting”: Ravindra and Murray). According to the Yoga Sutra (4:33), the sense of time as sequence enters when the level of consciousness falls from the highest state. That highest state—kaivalya—is one of freedom precisely because it is free of the constraints of time.

By contrast, all scientific measurements are in the realm of time: otherwise there could be no measurement. One root meaning of the word maya (usually translated illusion) in Sanskrit is to measure. If the Real is that which is perceived in the highest state of consciousness, that which can be measured cannot possibly be real. The Real is immeasurable, but it can be tasted, experienced, delighted in.

When it comes to an understanding of higher consciousness, the revelations of the great traditions do not pertain only to the past. Of course, the texts and individuals in the traditions are from the past, but their major concern is the Real, eternally and for ever, neither in the past nor in the future.

The First Person Universal

In our attempts to find objective knowledge (the great aspiration of science, the yoga of the West), we cannot eliminate the person. What is needed in fact is an enlargement of the person—to be freed from the merely personal and subjective to be more inclusive. In order to comprehend, one needs to be comprehensive, not as a horizontal extension of more and more knowledge but as a vertical transformation, in order to participate in the universal mind.

To return to the opening idea in this paper, although it is true that we humans know and think, the question is what or who thinks. During a conversation with the author, J. Krishnamurti said quite simply, “You know, sir, it occurs to me that K does not think at all. That’s strange. He just looks” (Ravindra, Krishnamurti, 77). If K was a short form of Krishnamurti, what is Krishnamurti a short form of? Of the entire cosmos? Not him alone, so, potentially, each one of us. If so, one looks and knows through thought rather than with thought.

            The yoga of the East is towards the realization of the First Person Universal. Only such a person can know without opposition and separation, freed from any desire to control or to manipulate. Then one loves what one knows.

Sources

Klostermaier, Klaus K.  A Survey of Hinduism. 2d ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.

Ravindra, Ravi. “Experience and Experiment: A Critique of Modern Scientific Knowing.” Dalhousie Review 55 (1975–76): 655–74. Reprinted as chapter 7 of Ravindra, ed., Science and Spirit. New York: Paragon House, 1991.

———. Krishnamurti: Two Birds on One Tree. Wheaton: Quest, 1995.

———. “Yoga: the Royal Path to Freedom.” In K. Sivaraman, ed., Hindu Spirituality: Vedas through Vedanta. New York: Crossroad, 1989, 177–91. Also included in Ravindra, Yoga and the Teaching of Krishna. Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1997.

Ravindra, Ravi, and P. Murray. “Is the Eternal Everlasting?” The Theosophist 117 (1996): 140–46. Also included in Ravindra, Yoga and the Teaching of Krishna, Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1997.

Ravi Ravindra is emeritus professor of physics at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He is the author of a number of books including The Pilgrim Soul: A Path to Transcending World Religions; The Gospel of John in the Light of Indian Mysticism; and most recently, The Bhagavad Gita: A Guide to Navigating the Battle of Life.  He was interviewed in Quest Magazine in Summer of 2018: A Great Soul: An Interview with Ravi Ravindra.

A version of this article was originally published in D. Lorimer, Chris Clarke, et al., eds., Wider Horizons: Explorations in Science and Human Experience (Fife, Scotland: Scientific and Medical Network, 1999): 186–92.

Printed in the  Winter 2020  issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation:  Savinainen, Antti, "Theosophy and Science: Do They Conflict?" Quest 108:1, pg 12-16

By Antti Savinainen 

The relationship between Theosophy and science is intriguing yet paradoxical. On the one hand, many key Theosophical teachings are metaphysical, which means that they cannot be scientifically tested. On the other hand, both H.P. Blavatsky and the Mahatma Letters discuss the science of their time. After all, the Second Object of the Theosophical Society is “to encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, and science.” Master Koot Hoomi even stated that “modern science is our best ally” (Chin and Barker, 168). My aim in this article is to determine to what extent some statements in early Theosophy and in the work of the Anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner stand up to scientific scrutiny. I will also briefly address two scientific lines of study that support Theosophical teachings.

To begin, let’s look at some key features of modern science. Science is not a collection of facts; it is a method and a process that are extremely effective in answering certain types of questions. Scientific theories and statements should be validated by evidence. There are different levels of certainty in science: we know some things almost for certain (though not with 100 percent certainty; this is possible only in logic and mathematics). For instance, the law of electromagnetic induction is virtually certain, since it has been tested and retested for well over a hundred years, and much of our current technology has been built on it. On the other hand, many exotic new ideas at the frontier of physics are not certain at all. Replication and the test of time will decide which ideas will survive. Scientific theories are formulated using methodological naturalism: hence scientific explanations cannot appeal to influences from invisible worlds (which are so eloquently described in Theosophical literature), spirits, gods, or any other metaphysical principles. It is clear that methodological naturalism has served science extremely well. 

HPB and Science in the Nineteenth Century

Let’s first discuss the concept of the atom. At the end of the nineteenth century, some physicists considered the existence of atoms as speculative, since no direct evidence was available (although the kinetic theory of gases employed the idea of atoms very successfully). HPB had interesting things to say about atoms in The Secret Doctrine. She proposed that “the atom is divisible, and must consist of particles, or of sub-atoms.” This statement is consistent with modern physics. However, she continues: “But infinite divisibility of atoms resolves matter into simple centers of force, i.e., precludes the possibility of conceiving matter as an objective substance” (Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, 1:519).

The modern view regards electrons and quarks, along with particles mediating the interactions within the atom, as elementary particles. This is not to say that quarks could not possibly consist of even smaller particles, but this infinite divisibility might be impossible to verify experimentally. The idea of the atom as a force center is more interesting from the modern point of view: particle physicists consider particles to be excitations of fields, seeing physical fields rather than particles as fundamental aspects of reality. Yet HPB made a grave mistake in claiming that “the atom belongs wholly to the domain of metaphysics . . . it can never be brought to the test of retort or balance” (Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine, 1:513). Actually individual atoms can be manipulated with modern technology, and by using laser cooling and ion traps, ionized atoms can be seen even with the naked eye.

Nineteenth-century physics had no doubt about the wave nature of light: the empirical evidence was unequivocal. This led physicists to discard Newton’s corpuscular theory of light. HPB offered another perspective from the occult point of view:

True, the corpuscular theory of old is rejected, and the undulatory [wave] theory has taken its place. But the question is, whether the latter is so firmly established as not to be liable to be dethroned as was its predecessor? . . .

Light, in one sense, is certainly as material as electricity itself is. (Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, 1:579–80)

These views are largely in line with the modern view of the wave-particle duality of light. It seems that HPB’s conception of light is validated by modern physics, at least to some extent. One might be tempted to proclaim that she was ahead of her time in her treatment of atoms and light.

HPB could, and did, meaningfully discuss and criticize nineteenth-century science in her writings. Nonetheless, it is crucial to take all of HPB’s statements on science into account. Some of her discussions reveal that she didn’t fully understand the theory of classical mechanics (for instance, see her take on the rotational motion of planets and the tails of comets: Blavatsky, Secret Doctrine, 1:539, 542–43).

Overall, although her discussion of science was quite insightful in her time, it has not stood the test of time. As one Finnish professor of cosmology has written, the scientific ideas in The Secret Doctrine have been shown to be “erroneous, irrelevant, or complete misunderstandings” (Enqvist, 243).

Science in the Mahatma Letters

		"Modern science is our best ally." wrote K.H. in the Mahatma Letters. This famous portrait, painted by the German artist Hermann Schmiechen in 1884, is said to have been guided by the hand of the Master himself.

To turn to the Mahatma Letters, Master KH wrote that there are other solar systems with planets beyond our own. Although there was no empirical evidence for exoplanets in the nineteenth century, about 4000 of them were detected as of March 30, 2019. Master KH makes a peculiar prediction concerning the exoplanets:

“Science will hear sounds from certain planets before she sees them. This is a prophecy” (Chin and Barker, 325.)

It is impossible for sound to propagate in interstellar space. On the other hand, there is another way to interpret the prophecy: perhaps KH was referring to radio waves, which were the means of detecting the first accepted observation of an exoplanet in 1992.

Other statements were not correct: for example, KH’s views on gravitational potential energy and conservation of energy reveal a lack of understanding of classical physics (Chin and Barker, 166–68).

Here are two more examples of incorrect statements about science:

On additional planets: “Not all of the Intra-mercurial Planets, . . . are yet discovered, though they are strongly suspected. We know that such exist and where they exist” (Chin and Barker, 325).

On meteors: “We all know, that the heat that the earth receives by radiation from the sun is at the utmost one third if not less of the amount received by her directly from the meteors.” (Chin and Barker, 319).

It is quite clear that the Mahatma Letters contain erroneous statements on science. 

Rudolf Steiner and Science

Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) was a prolific spiritual teacher, first in the Theosophical movement, and later in the Anthroposophical Society, which he founded. One might say that he was a polymath in spiritual science and its applications into practice. Among other things, he was well acquainted with classical physics, which he had studied at an institute of technology. Again, however, some of his statements on science have been shown to be completely incorrect. Let’s consider two examples on special relativity, which is now supported by an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence:

There is the further requirement that the concept or idea must be in accordance with reality. Now, a very lengthy discussion would be required if I were to show you that the whole of the theory of relativity does not agree with reality, even though it is logical—wonderfully logical . . .

Another affirmation of Einstein’s is that even the dimension of a body is merely relative, and depends on the rapidity of movement. Thus, according to the Einstein theory, if a man moved through cosmic space with a certain velocity, he would not retain his bulk from front to back, but would become as thin as a sheet of paper. (Kinnes)

The first excerpt treats special relativity as an abstract theory with no connection to reality. It may have been reasonable to say this in 1920, but later evidence (from particle accelerators and geographical positioning systems) has unequivocally shown that special relativity accords very well with reality. The second excerpt shows that Steiner had not understood the implications of the Lorentz contraction. The point is that there is no change in the proper length. It may be that this was not well explained in the sources available to Steiner.

Radioactivity was discovered in 1896, but full understanding of the phenomenon was reached only much later, with the development of quantum theory. Steiner took a stance on it soon after it was discovered: in his opinion, radioactivity had existed in nature for only a few thousand years (Grant, 1996). Then in 1918, Steiner claimed that it had existed only since the Mystery of Golgotha (the death and resurrection of Christ), that is, about two thousand years (Meyer, 165). This view is clearly wrong. Moreover, a year before his death Steiner said that the earth is younger than 20 million years. This is demonstrably wrong: the evidence for a much older earth is overwhelming. 

Tension between Spiritual Teachings and Science

One could safely say that it is not wise to read the Bible as a textbook of science. I would recommend the same approach for other spiritual sources as well. The fact that there are incorrect statements about science in Theosophical and Anthroposophical sources does not surprise me, even though I think very highly of these as spiritual teachings in general. It is not plausible to assume that spiritual teachers would have infallible expertise in every possible scientific question from here to eternity. Actually, this interpretation is supported in Master KH’s own writing: “You may be, and most assuredly are our superiors in every branch of physical knowledge; in spiritual sciences we were, are and always will be your—Masters.” (Chin and Barker, 34).

The Anthroposophist Christopher Bamford has written about how even the initiates are inevitably children of their own time: “Everyone, even an ‘initiate,’ incarnates in a specific time and culture, so that no matter how deep the love and wisdom they are able to infuse into their historic moment, they are nevertheless inevitably of that moment and thus express its contingent strengths and weakness to a greater or lesser extent” (Bamford, introduction to Steiner, 11–12).

Bamford makes an excellent point. Refusing to recognize errors in the Theosophical lore risks making the movement frozen in time. Taken to the logical extreme, this would mean that no evolution of spiritual or scientific views is possible. 

Where Science and Theosophy Agree

So far I have addressed only topics in which spiritual teachings are at odds with validated scientific views. Nevertheless, some areas of scientific inquiry do support spiritual teachings and challenge the naturalistic framework. One such area is near-death experience (NDE), which has been studied for over forty years. There is now reliable evidence about the process of dying as experienced by people who have lost all vital signs. The best evidence comes from prospective and longitudinal studies, such as the study published in The Lancet by van Lommel et al. (2001). Perhaps the most striking similarity between the NDE studies and Theosophy is in life reviews. Here are short excerpts about this subject from Master KH and the Finnish Theosophist Pekka Ervast (1875–1934):

At the last moment, the whole life is reflected in our memory and emerges from all the forgotten nooks and corners picture after picture, one event after the other. The dying brain dislodges memory with a strong supreme impulse, and memory restores faithfully every impression entrusted to it during the period of the brain’s activity. (Chin and Barker, 326)

He does not live in his reminiscences as he did while being physically alive. He just watches the great play and judges it objectively, calling each thing—depending on its own quality—as good or bad, crime or merit, and so on. He remains in a great light, so to speak . . . In fact, the viewer is the personalized higher self. In death the solemn experience of memories is not due to the ordinary physical personality; instead, it is due to the higher self. (Marjanen et al., 40)

Both of these descriptions match very well with the findings of NDE research.

Furthermore, some people undergoing NDEs have been able to recall accurately what was going on when they were being resuscitated, whereas a control group with no NDEs were highly inaccurate in describing their situations (Sartori, 2008). Furthermore, Holden (2009) reviewed eighty-nine published case reports documenting observations during NDEs with out-of-body experiences: 92 percent of the case reports were considered completely accurate. (It does not come as a surprise that skeptics have been keen to provide naturalistic explanations, no matter how contrived, for these findings.)

The second area of scientific inquiry that is relevant here, is research on children who report past life memories. The late Professor Ian Stevenson started this research in the 1960s, and his work continues at the University of Virginia, whose Division of Perceptual Studies has a database of about 2500 cases in which children have provided information on their (alleged) past lives.

Typically children talk about their past lives when they are aged two to five. In some cases, researchers have verified many statements made by the children before their present and past-life families have been in contact. On the one hand, no “perfect” case has been found, which leaves some space for doubt. On the other hand, some cases are very convincing: for example, James Leininger’s (Tucker, 2016).

Finally, it may be worth noting that the time between incarnations in the investigated cases is usually only a few years or less, whereas according to Theosophical teachings it is typically ten centuries or more. From the Theosophical point of view, this discrepancy suggests that children’s reincarnations are an exception: these individuals have not gone through the lengthy process of various afterlife states. 

Conclusions

It is exciting that the scientific research on NDEs and children’s past life accounts coincide very well with teachings of the perennial wisdom. These lines of study provide a challenge to the materialistic paradigm of science: if consciousness is a mere product of the brain, there should be no conscious experiences during the time the brain is not functioning, and any notion of reincarnation is totally impossible. Yet cases like those described above do happen. The essence of science, like Theosophy, is seeking for truth. This means that if the data suggest that the naturalistic worldview is too narrow, it should be broadened in the spirit of “follow the data wherever it leads.” In this sense, science can indeed be “our best ally.”

Nonetheless, there clearly are statements about science in Theosophy and Anthroposophy that have not withstood the test of time. This fact should be taken seriously, and we should ask the following question: which teachings are just contingent products of the past?

Whatever the answer turns out to be, there are certainly many great teachings in Theosophy which are crucial in understanding life from a higher perspective, such as the laws of karma and reincarnation, the evolving higher Self, and highly ethical ideals, which inspire us to become truly compassionate human beings.

Sources

All emphasis in quotes is from the original.

Blavatsky. H.P. The Secret Doctrine. 3 vols. Wheaton: Quest, 1993.

Chin, Vicente Hao, Jr., and A. Trevor Barker, eds. The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett in Chronological Sequence. Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1998.

Enqvist, K. Olemisen porteilla (“At the Gates of Being”). Helsinki: WSOY, 2011.

“Exoplanet.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#History_of_detection, accessed Sept. 30, 2019.

Grant, N. “Radioactivity in the History of the Earth.” Archetype: Journal of the Science Group of the Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain 2 (Sept. 1996): https://sciencegroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/sgnl96.pdf, accessed Sept. 27, 2019.

Holden, J. M. “Veridical Perception in Near-Death Experiences.” In J.M. Holden, B. Greyson, and D. James, eds. The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2009: 185–211.

Kinnes, Tormod. “Rudolf Steiner Looks at Relativity”: http://oaks.nvg.org/steiner-relativity.html accessed Sept. 27, 2019. Kinnes cites Steiner’s The Riddle of Humanity, lecture 10.

Marjanen, J., A. Savinainen, and J. Sorvali, eds. From Death to Rebirth: Teachings of the Finnish Sage Pekka Ervast. Helsinki: Literary Society of the Finnish Rosy Cross: 2017, https://teosofia.net/e-kirjat/Pekka_Ervast-From_Death_to_Rebirth.pdf

Meyer, T.H. Ludwig Polzer-Hoditz, A European: A Biography. Forest Row, U.K.: Temple Lodge, 2014.

Sartori, P. The Near-Death Experiences of Hospitalized Intensive Care Patients: A Five Year Clinical Study. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 2008.

Steiner, Rudolf. The Occult Movement in the Nineteenth Century. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1973.

Tucker, J. “The Case of James Leininger: An American Case of the Reincarnation Type.” Explore 12 (2016), 200–07.

University of Virginia, Department of Perceptual Studies website: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/children-who-report-memories-of-previous-lives/media/, accessed Sept. 27, 2019.

Van Lommel, P., R. van Wees, V. Meyers, and I. Elfferich. “Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands.” The Lancet 358 (2001), 2039–45.

Antti Savinainen, PhD, is a Finnish high-school physics instructor who teaches both the Finnish national syllabus and for the international baccalaureate. Since receiving his PhD in physics in 2004, he has been involved with physics education research as a researcher and thesis supervisor. He has been a member of the Finnish Rosy Cross, a part of the Finnish Theosophical movement, for thirty years. He was on the editorial team that compiled From Death to Rebirth: Teachings of the Finnish Sage Pekka Ervast (see link in Sources above).

Printed in the  Winter 2020  issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation:  Hebert, Barbara, "The Second Object and Its Relevance Today" Quest 108:1, pg 10-11

By  Barbara Hebert
National President

The Second Object of the Theosophical Society—“to encourage the comparative study of religion, philosophy, and science”—provides the theme of Science for this issue of Quest. The late TSA president Joy Mills writes:

Freedom of inquiry, the second principle enunciated at the Society’s founding, is encapsulated in the Second Object, encouraging us to expand our horizons, broaden our sympathies, deepen our appreciation for the paths of others, by studying all the fields of human endeavor as represented by the three major categories of religion, philosophy and science. Such study, undertaken not that we may become “walking encyclopedias” or scholastic giants, but rather that we may deepen our understanding of the numerous ways that lead to a knowledge of the One Reality, requires a genuine freedom of thought. The study must be without preconceived ideas, without prejudice or bias, and without blind belief in the superiority of one way over another, if it is to support the first principle of brotherhood. And there can be no other reason for such study, for that ideal is surely the overarching principle for which the Society was founded.

Our study, as encouraged by the Second Object, provides the direction for our spiritual growth: to move toward “a knowledge of the One Reality” so that we may recognize the unity of all. That study cannot simply be a shallow review of religions, philosophies, and sciences, but must focus on the deeper aspects that may guide us toward knowledge of the One Reality: the Truth behind the illusory perception of division and separation. Therefore, we study!

However, let’s not forget the statement in The Voice of the Silence that says: “The mind is the great slayer of the Real. Let the disciple slay the slayer.” 

In the first part of this Theosophical classic, we learn about three halls through which the disciple must pass. The first hall is the Hall of Ignorance. “It is the hall in which thou saw’st the light, in which thou livest and shalt die” (I, 25). We have, on some level, seen the light. We know it’s there, and we are striving to reach it. Yet we continue to live and die, remaining on the wheel of rebirth.

The second hall is the Hall of Learning. The Voice of the Silence says that here we “will find the blossoms of life, but under every flower a serpent coiled” (I, 26). We “must stop not the fragrance of its stupefying blossoms to inhale. If freed thou wouldst be from the karmic chains, seek not for thy guru in those mayavic regions. The wise ones tarry not in pleasure grounds of senses. The wise ones heed not the sweet-tongued voices of illusion” (I, 29–31).

We are warned not to get caught up in the Hall of Learning. Going through it is part of our journey, but it is not the end! How often do we find seekers who are happy to go into long discussions about the role of the Lipikas or about the intricacies of the Rounds and Chains in the evolutionary journey? How many do we know who study for the excitement of acquiring knowledge and the pride in knowing what others may not know? These are some of the serpents coiled under the flowers—the stupefying blossoms that will keep us in illusion. If we remain in the Hall of Learning, we risk being trapped in maya. We must continue our journey into the Hall of Wisdom.

If there are such dangers, why are we encouraged to study comparative religion, philosophy, and science? Rohit Mehta, a prominent twentieth-century Theosophical writer, observes:

Religion, science and philosophy reveal certain Laws of Life. A study of these branches of knowledge enables one to understand them in terms of the mind . . . Study is essentially a mental process . . . In other words, the Second Object seeks to give breadth to the mind. We are using here the word mind in its meaning of the composite process of thought and emotion. The purpose of the Second Object is to enlarge the horizons of the mind, to extend its range so that there is no avenue of the mind which remains unexplored. Even though the mind’s process of acquiring knowledge is indirect, it is necessary if one is to move on the pathway to direct or unveiled perception . . . It is undoubtedly necessary for [hu]man[s] to observe outer structures as that is what attracts [our] attention at first. In observing the manifested universe and examining its structural laws, [the] mind becomes alert and active. It is this which is indicated in the Second Object of the Theosophical Society. To explore the possibilities of the mind—that indeed is the purpose of the study of comparative religion, science, and philosophy. Curiously enough, he who knows the possibilities of the mind, knows at the same time the limitations of the mind.

Mehta tells us that we need to study in order to explore the possibilities of the mind, push it to its limits, and then move beyond it. The true Self does not exist in this world of illusion, although the mind and brain do. Therefore, as long as we continue to live in this mayavic region, we must hone the mind so that it serves us in our search for an understanding of the One Truth.

Truth can only be experienced. It cannot be put into words, which are the playthings of the mind. We will not find Truth through the study of books or through discussion groups. We must go beyond, as Mehta recommends.

The Second Object provides direction for us. We are encouraged to study religion, philosophy, and science at their core, not simply to gain knowledge but to push our minds to their limits. Once we have done this, we may expand beyond the mind, allowing us to potentially experience some aspect of the One Reality. 

What is that One Reality? We don’t really know, but it is seemingly a realization of the unity of all life. We may believe that all life is one, but that is a function of the mind. It’s a cognitive concept that we grasp, but most of us haven’t truly experienced it beyond brief intuitive glimpses.

As we continue our spiritual journey toward experiencing the One Reality, all three of the Objects provide us with guidance. The late TSA president John Algeo writes:

In their inner sense, the Objects are calling us to join the band of servers by seeking to assist in transmitting the Divine Wisdom of Theosophy to the world by understanding its mysteries and by transforming ourselves. In that inner sense, the Objects are not about different activities, but rather about three aspects of one activity: acting out the bodhisattva vow or living altruistically . . . The outer Objects are good and useful. But for those who hear the call of an inner reality, the inner meaning of the Objects awaits their exploration. Those who look to the inner sense will not all find the same meaning, or at least will not articulate it in the same way. The inner sense is highly personal. Each Theosophist will perceive it in a unique way that is individually applicable. Yet, however it is perceived and however it is articulated, the inner meaning of the three Objects is a call to live the theosophical life. The Objects are not just about forming groups, encouraging the study of human learning, and investigating the unexplained. They are about doing Theosophy.

What does it mean to “do Theosophy?” Theosophical author and lecturer Ed Abdill writes:

The Theosophical Society was meant to be an organization of people from every culture who have some sense of the underlying unity of all. It was meant to be an organization of people who work together to help others realize their underlying unity with humanity as a whole. Far as we may be from it, that is our ultimate goal . . . From an awareness of underlying unity comes an altruistic way of life that is compassionate, wise, and practical. That is the sacred mission of the Theosophical Society, made clear by KH when he wrote: “The chief object of the T.S. is not so much to gratify individual aspirations as to serve our fellow men” (Letter 2, Barker).

Doing Theosophy, then, means living an altruistic life by serving others. Does this mean that we go out and feed the hungry? Maybe, but it is something far deeper than this. (Please note that I’m not discouraging anyone from working on social-service projects. We need to do these things, but here we are talking about something that falls purely into the purview of Theosophy.)

We are all One; therefore, when one part changes, the whole must change. Think of a glass of water. If I put a drop of blue dye into the water, it will take on a slightly bluish tint: it has changed. If I continue putting drops into the water, eventually it will turn a darker and darker blue. We are like that water. If one of us changes, then all of us change. It might not be noticeable at first, but eventually the whole of humanity will transform. This is our great task, and it is the task to which the Second Object points us. By transforming ourselves and traveling the spiritual path, we are serving all beings by facilitating their spiritual transformation.

Sources

Abdill, Edward. “The Universal Brotherhood of Humanity.” Quest 96, no. 5 (Sept.-Oct. 2008): 177–79, 191.

Algeo, John. “The Objects and Their Relevance to the Theosophical Life.” The Theosophist 118 (Nov. 1996): https://www.theosophical.org/files/resources/articles/Objects.pdf, accessed Sept. 27, 2019.

Blavatsky, H.P. The Voice of the Silence. In Inspirations from Ancient Wisdom. Wheaton: Quest Books, 1999: 66–121.

Mehta, Rohit. “The Three Objects”: http://hpb.narod.ru/TheThreeObjectsRM.htm#, accessed Sept. 27, 2019.

Mills, Joy. “The Purpose of the Society’s Objects.” The Theosophist 118 (Nov. 1996): http://www.theosophical.org/files/resources/articles/PurposeObjects.pdf, accessed Oct. 1, 2019.

Printed in the  Winter 2020  issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation:  Clewell, Andre, "Revisiting Theosophical Science" Quest 108:1, pg 9

By Andre Clewell

The subtitle of The Secret Doctrine is The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy. H.P. Blavatsky devoted numerous pages in this work to the scholarly assessment of the science that was current in 1888. Since that time, great strides have been made demonstrating the connections between spirituality and science. Dean Radin of the Institute of Noetic Sciences has done much to bring this union to popular attention in several books, including Supernormal and Real Magic. In particular, Radin described research, published in reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific journals, which confirms that consciousness exists apart from the brain and body.

Spiritual traditions have long recognized an independently existing consciousness and variously designated it as spirit, soul, and psyche. Consequently, independently occurring consciousness, by whatever term it may be designated, is now accessible for scientific investigation. Such research will not be easy. Nobody, neither scientists nor Theosophists, can crisply define what consciousness is. We only know some of its attributes. But that impediment should not be daunting; physicists can’t define energy either, except as how it affects matter. 

Nearly all scientists ignore the published research, which establishes that consciousness can be extracorporeal. Such an admission would ruin their careers, and we will have to wait until their curious graduate students join the professorial ranks. Concomitantly, nearly all Theosophists have lost all but a passing interest in science since Blavatsky’s time. We may have to wait for the next generation of Theosophists to emerge before scientific interest will be rekindled as brightly as it was in 1888.

The Theosophical Society is saddled with a sticky conundrum if we attempt to meld science and Theosophy. The problem is that the science in The Secret Doctrine is hopelessly out of date. We just can’t jettison what Blavatsky wrote 132 years ago, because the entire edifice of Theosophy was constructed on its foundations. Academic scholars would gleefully attack us if we discredited passages in this work. Perhaps we can take a page from science and simply ignore the fantastic, outdated, and erroneous parts.

We are caught in a bind of our own making, because we will have to reinterpret what the Masters taught and state their concepts in modern parlance. If we are successful, bounteous truth and solid principles will remain. We will have to make a convincing argument, though, that seemingly erroneous information given to early Theosophists by the Masters is valid only in terms of archaic Victorian science. The Masters answered the questions that were asked of them in a manner that would be understood in the 1880s and not in the twenty-first century. We would ask them different questions today and receive very different answers based on contemporary knowledge.

We need accessible yet scholarly books authored by scientists who can explain clearly to other scientists (or their graduate students!) the plethora of scientific questions that bear investigation now that consciousness has been set free from the brain. I suggest Rupert Sheldrake’s book Science Set Free as an excellent model for this effort.

Andre Clewell, PhD, is president of the Tallahassee Study Group and of the MidSouth Federation of the TSA.