Talk:The Secret Doctrine/Archive 1

Einstein connection

I'm not wild about the inclusion of the Einstein link. It's possible that Einstein did keep a copy on his desk, but to me it looks like there's a good chance it's just an urban legend. I know the links should not be held to the same standards as the text, but I worry about posting links to such dubious information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.93.113.49 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

From my understanding the secret doctrine was brought up in the conversation of hitler and his mentor Dietrich Eckart and i believed he stated that he had said "follow hitler!he will dance, but it is i who have called the tune!'i have intiated him into the secret doctrine open his centres in vision and givehim the means to communicate with the Powers. So what does the phrase 'Secret Doctrine' really mean?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loa (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

RR

Paul, I think details about RR would better belong to the RR article itself. There the topic could be explained in detail, with the necessary information about the seven chains, globes,... instead of giving here some select citations confusing and bewildering the reader. I'm not against criticism, and I think that parts of the SD deserve to be criticized, but this topic should be treated in one single article. This is standard wikipedia practice: The Qu'uran article has no citations about Jihad or Slavery, because they are treated in separate articles (theoretically). --Loa 16:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The article should be about the content of the book. In its previous form it consisted of nothing but unexplained gushing endorsements. There was virtually no account of the book's content at all. I think that was far more 'confusing and bewildering to the reader.' Certainly more material should be added, especially about the first half of the book, but the racial aspect is quite important to the book's content, since HPB is consistently engaging with the scientific topics of her day - the age of the earth, evolution etc. This engagement is aligned to other attacks on Judeo-Christian traditions from this period. I don't quite follow the analogy with the Qur'an. Slavery is not central to the Qur'an, jihad is marginal. Root races are central to the SD. Paul B 08:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The article states:

"Blavatsky attempted to demonstrate that the discoveries of "materialist" science had been anticipated in the writings of ancient sages, and that materialism would soon be proven wrong." Is it me, or aren't these two things contradictory, or at least, it would take some fleshing out to explain this in context. Did she think the ancients were wrong in the things they anticipated, or does it mean that *some* aspects of "materialism" will be proven wrong, I suspect excepting the parts the ancients supposedly anticipated? It seems to suggest 1) the ancients were right about . . . something and 2) modern materialists are wrong about . . . something, but not the same things? DianaW (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Racism

It is completely lopsided too use half the article on The Secret Doctrine for quotations about the "aryan race", a subject which takes up just a few lines in the work as a whole. --Vindheim (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well she talks about Aryans repeatedly. However, expand the rest if you think there's too much on race. Paul B (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I shall try to find the time to expand on the article, and to balance the misunderstood aryan stuff a bit in the process.--Vindheim (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Too little of her writings on other 'races'?

Actually, as far as I remember from my childhood's misspent hours reading a family copy of The Secret Doctrine (actually in Swedish translation), she wrote quite a lot about the living representatives of the third an fourth root races. HPB went into details; according to her, each root race (seen over the whole time of its existence) is divided into seven 'subraces' (Swedish translation: underras), and each subrace into seven 'family races' (Swedish translation: Familjeras); she spent some effort in identifying them among the extinct, recent and future groups of humans she claimed existed/exists/will exist. My memories are very much in contradiction with the following claim in our Wikipedia article:

"The designation aryans appears as a subgroup of the fifth rootrace, which comprises the vast majority of present humanity."

Of course HPB may have contradicted herself in this point (too), and so she may have written something like this somewhere else; but I do not remember anything of the sort. What I do remember is that she claimed that the seventh (and last) subrace of the fourth root race mainly developped and contributed to the progress of Mankind after the sinking of Atlantis, and comprises that rather large part of the Asian population which then often was called "the mongolian race". The sixth family race of this seventh subrace consists of the Chinese, she wrote; and the seventh and last family race of the seventh subrace consists of the Japanese. Since she also roughly identified the living representatives of the third root race with the high skin pigmentation level people, whether originating from Africa south of Sahara, Australia (aborigins), or elsewhere, she was very far from neglecting the number of individuals she considered to be of lower root races.

I'll put on a fact template on the sentence. When you consider the sources, please see of you didn't mix this up with two or three other things:

1. HPB wrote something about the Japanese (as being the last one of the forty-nine family races of the fourth root race) still havintg history to contribute to Mankind. (I think she meant that China, recently beaten and humbled in the Opium war just had ceased its contribution.) Apart from that, only the fifth root race (and far off in the future the sixth and seventh ones) has this role. Thus, in HPB's opinion, not the vast number of individuals, but the lion's share of the contributions to the evolution of Mankind as a whole is almost reserved for the fifth root race.
2. HPB indeed considered humanity as one, in the sense that a person incarnated in one race and sex in the present life might have changed that in the next incarnation. However, this does not imply that she considered all races equal. From her point of view, a lower race individual normally would mature, and thus often would reincarnate in a somewhat higher race (taking subraces and family races into account). In this view, all humans are equal, in the same sense that all children in a primary school are equal and have the same value; but that does not mean that they all are equally mature. HPB exhibits an "Onkel tom" kind of benevelonce towards the "lower races"; and more than that, since like the eight year old child later grows into a hopefully more mature young adult, the "onkel Toms" are expected to achieve the mature fifth (or higher!) root race status is some future incarnation. (She always made reservations for exceptions. If you behave really stupid in this incarnation, she thought you might be reborn in a lower race; however, this would be a temporary draw-back and run against the trend.)
3. Finally, on the one hand, theosophists in general greatly rever HPB's texts in general and the Secret Doctrine in particular. On the other hand, the rasism that appears in these parts of her work are absolutely and impossibly horrible, seen from a modern perspective. It definitely is not the opinion of modern theosophists (at least none of those I met); it is quite contrary to e.g. the work in favour of idependence for India that important theosophists like Annie Besant engaged in; and I think that it also contrasts with Blavatsky's own attitudes and practice, at least as theosophists describe this. Besant definitely seemed to have a much less rasistic attitude, possibly formed in more radical circles she joined earlier, like the Fabian Society. This may be true or not; the important thing is that a lot of theosophists to-day identify both themselves and the TS as anti-rasistic, but at the same hand have a great respect for (read: strongly believe in) HPB's writings. This is a contradiction, where there in their opinion could not exist one. Therefore, they might tend to read Blavatsky in the light of what she should have written more than what she actually wrote. Many theosophists really believe that HPB wrote her texts, not quite by divine inspiration, but by help of the Masters, and sometimes in a trance; and for them it is no easy matter to accept that she simply was utterly wrong about "races". Therefore, the "solution" instead must be that she didn't really write what she seems to have written. The acceptance of this "solution" may be even easier for those who do not read HPB much directly, but rather read compilations and explanations of her ideas, by other authors. Possibly, our present article might have been slightly influenced by such interpretations.

If my last suspicion is correct, then I think that we should reconsider a clearly visible split of the stuff, in analogy with the treatment of Jesus. In the latter case, we try to cover both what scientists think of the historical person behind the legends (including the minority that does not think there was one); and the christian's view of Jesus; how this has evolved, and what it is to-day. Similarly, IMHO there is a clear encyclopædic interest in what Blavatsky actually wrote and what scolars on religion and others think were the reasons and background for this; but if we may pinpoint a different interpretation both of what she said and what she meant in theosophical circles, then this also could be of encyclopædic interest, as a separate item. JoergenB (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of "racism" please note this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helena_Blavatsky#racial_theories ! Thanks --Mr flapdoodle (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hypatia of Alexandria

I really do not understand what is supposed to be meant by claiming that Blavatskys work was "borrowed from Hypatia". If the intention is to claim that Blavatsky was influenced by Hypatia, it may be true, but still needs documentation (as well as rephrasing).--Vindheim (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where does it say that? As far as I know none of Hypatia's writings actually survive. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

an anonymous editor had inserted the following (which i subsequently removed): "The work was borrowed from Hypatia of Alexandria, founder of universities in ancient Rome. Hypatia was raped and killed by Christian fanatics. Her work burned down 400 years after Caligula's reign." --Vindheim (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just nutty nonsense. Anyway, she wasn't raped, didn't found anything in Rome, and why mention Caligula? Paul B (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Secret Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050324004656/http://theosophical.ca/SecDoctrine3A.htm to http://www.theosophical.ca/SecDoctrine3A.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticisms

Edit-warring over the inappropriate use of the "pseudoscientific" in the lede isn't going to change the reality of its badness. At an absolute minimum, "esoteric" is an more accurate, descriptive, and unbiased adjective in this context.

Criticisms are noted in the second section of the current lede and explored in depth in the "Critical Responses" section

--2603:8000:D401:6E6F:71A0:2889:8784:C50F (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Your edits are ranging into personal opinion and activist editing. What is your expertise on this topic? 76.87.145.215 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No, they are not. We have three sources for the word "pseudoscientific". You do not need expertise on any topic to notice that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: The word pseudo-science on the very first sentence is unnecessary. Using one scientific writer and some historian as references to support the claim is not enough.

So, what are your demands? Two scientific writers and... a bunch of historians? And how do you figure? Why should we need more? This is how such things are handled on Wikipedia: reliable source, check. Text, check. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: To make such bold statement at very first sentence of article: YES. How does (pseudo?) science-fiction writer's opinion have anything to do with the content of this book? Keepovtourself (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Elaborating on my 'Yes' response: First of all, how does (pseudo-?)science-fiction writer's opinion have anything to do with the validity of content in this book? Historians may be a good choice. However, we are speaking of science, not history. Shouldn't you provide a list of scientists to falsify the claims in the book?

No. The historian Ronald H. Fritze is a reliable source for this, and L. Sprague de Camp ditto. If you want to remove the word, you will need sources contradicting them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC):

See WP:Fringe and WP:MAINSTREAM. The Secret Doctrine is a pseudoscientific nonsense book, we have decent WP:RS on this, we do not shun mainstream views from scholars. The book has been criticized as pseudoscientific in reliable sources so that is what is on the article. What has been said to you above is within the guidelines. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:They may be reliable sources for critical views. However, they are not scientists, and their personal opinions do not make it a reliable source to justify the "pseudo-scientific" denomination - at the very beginning of the article as the introduction to describe this book.

Here are some scientists linking "The Secret Doctrine" with scientific views in quantum mechanics: Madonna Megara Holloway - University of Cambridge, Dept. of Chemistry, PhD Candidate in Theoretical Chemistry, Reaction Catalysis, Quantum Energy : Yuliia Shabanova - Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor, Dnipro University of Technology Dnipro, Ukraine - Conceptual Foundations of the Postmaterialist Paradigm of Science

@Psychologist Guy: Where is the "Neutral Point of View" from your sources? WP:NPOV

Neither of those fringe papers are reliable they are both quack papers invoking quantum woo and other spiritual nonsense. What you are citing is basically no different than creationism, it has no place in science. You obviously do not understand what science is, this is a waste of time. You are citing absolute fringe nonsense. Show us a scholarly source published in a decent academic journal or by a reliable publisher. I am not aware of any that defend the type of pseudoscience in the Secret Doctrine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: I'm a skeptic too but your radical skepticism is overwhelming and you shouldn't have the authority to edit this specific article. Creationists would have also thrown this book, and the author in the fire, for heresy. We are in different times, but with not so different attitudes. You didn't answer the question regarding the NPOV. Keepovtourself (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have read the NPOV policy for years and respect it, perhaps you missed this part "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". We don't give a WP:FALSEBALANCE. The mainstream scholarly opinion is that the Secret Doctrine is a pseudohistorical/pseudoscientific work written by a noted charlatan. There is no reason to cite a minority of fringe sources when we have reliable sources (Ronald Fritze etc) cited on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

References