Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tt00051)

To Theos-Talk subscribers:

A very interesting discussion has been going on Theos-l
concerning the Mahatma Letters and the ideas expressed
therein on science, especially the existence of the
continents of Atlantis and Lemuria.  I have copied below the
various postings on this subject by Paul M.M. Kieniewicz,
K. Paul Johnson and Eldon Tucker.  I thought some of you
might be interested in this subject matter and might
want to make some comments.

Daniel H. Caldwell

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 19:02:25 -0500
> From: "Paul M Kieniewicz" <pmmkien@main.com>
> Subject: Where are Atlantis and Lemuria??
>
> Has anyone seen the new gravity map of the world's oceans just
> released by the Dept of Defense? March or April "Discovery"
> magazine has some nice pictures of it.  You can see the world's
> oceans mapped in astonishing details with fracture zones,
> spreading centers etc..  all done by various satellites.  You can
> also see how the continents fit together and how they drifted.
>
> Can anyone tell me where to look for Atlantis and Lemuria?
>
> Paul K.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 21:52:42 -0500
> From: "Paul M Kieniewicz" <pmmkien@main.com>
> Subject: Mahatma letters
>
> If the Masters had anything to do with writing the Mahatma
> letters, why is it that the science discussed in these letters
> reflects 19th century ideas, and is so at odds with present day
> observations? Were the Mahatmas just bad scientists or (more
> probably) were the letters authored by someone else who was just
> echoing the ideas of the day.
>
> 1.  Atlantis? A very popular 19th century idea.  It just doesn't
> exist.  I challenge anyone to take the latest satellite pictures
> of the Earth's oceans and find me Atlantis or where it was in the
> Eocene or Miocene.  One of the latest ideas is that Atlantis is
> actually Antartica.  That's quite a long way off - and it didn't
> submerge in the Miocene.
>
> 2.  The Earth being heated by meteors? Give me a break.
>
> 3.  The velocity of light different outside our atmosphere.
> Again this was a big 19th century debate, put to rest by
> Einstein's relativity based on observations that the speed of
> light is a constant.
>
> 4.  The sun is a cold world! No comment.
>
> 5.  The sun contains a large amount of iron? Again a 19th century
> idea based on the observation that the spectral lines of iron
> found in the sun are strong.  Actually, iron is a very minor
> element <<< 1%.
>
> And so on.  I don't know if what is written in those pages on
> non-scientific issues makes any sense.  But the scientific
> passages are painful to read.
>
> Paul K.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 96 12:54:15 EDT
> From: "K Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
> Subject: Re: Mahatma letters
>
> According to Paul M.M. Kieniewicz:
>
> > If the Masters had anything to do with writing the Mahatma
> > letters, why is it that the science discussed in these letters
> > reflects 19th century ideas, and is so at odds with present day
> > observations?
>
> Because they were written in the 19th century.
>
> > Were the Mahatmas just bad scientists or (more probably) were the
> > letters authored by someone else who was just echoing the ideas
> > of the day.
>
> In some areas they foreshadow subsequent scientific
> developments, but in others they echo unreliable sources, e.g.:
>
> > 1.  Atlantis? A very popular 19th century idea.  It just doesn't
> > exist.  I challenge anyone to take the latest satellite pictures
> > of the Earth's oceans and find me Atlantis or where it was in the
> > Eocene or Miocene.  One of the latest ideas is that Atlantis is
> > actually Antartica.  That's quite a long way off - and it didn't
> > submerge in the Miocene.
>
> No continent could have been in the Atlantic, but what about a
> lost civilization in the Azores, Canaries, Madeiras that would
> account for Plato's legend?
>
> > And so on.  I don't know if what is written in those pages on
> > non-scientific issues makes any sense.  But the scientific
> > passages are painful to read.
> >
> > Paul
>
> IMO the non-scientific material is superior, and sometimes gives
> a very interesting angle on British Indian history and issues.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:05:28 -0700
> From: "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@theosophy.com>
> Subject: Re: Mahatma letters
>
> Paul J:
>
> [writing to Paul K]
>
> > > 1.  Atlantis? A very popular 19th century idea.  It just doesn't
> > > exist.  I challenge anyone to take the latest satellite pictures
> > > of the Earth's oceans and find me Atlantis or where it was in the
> > > Eocene or Miocene.  One of the latest ideas is that Atlantis is
> > > actually Antartica.  That's quite a long way off - and it didn't
> > > submerge in the Miocene.
>
> > No continent could have been in the Atlantic, but what about a
> > lost civilization in the Azores, Canaries, Madeiras that would
> > account for Plato's legend?
>
> Before I would comment on this, I'd want to go back to some maps
> showing continental drift, to see if there was a continent a few
> million years back where the Atlantic ocean can now be found.  If
> these changes happen over vast ages, it does not necessarily have
> to be a "rising" or "sinking" of continents.
>
> What's Cayce's slant on this?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 20:45:49 -0500
> From: "Paul M Kieniewicz" <pmmkien@main.com>
> Subject: Atlantis et al.
>
> Hi Eldon -- it's a while since we met in California under the
> great pine trees!
>
> Some words regarding your reply and K.  Paul's on Atlantis.  I
> have been involved in my job in the task of reconstructing the
> history of the North Atlantic since the late Cretaceous.  One
> rather powerful tool is the new gravity map of the world released
> by the Dept.  of Defense.  "Discover" magazine had a feature on
> it last March (?).  The map gives you a picture of the Earth's
> oceans with a resolution better than 20 km.  You can trace
> continental spreading since the late Cretaceous on that map - the
> fracture zones are all mapped in great detail.  Well, once you
> have defined the boundary of oceanic crust, you can fit the
> continents together like a jigsaw puzzle so that not even a chink
> shows.  There's just not room for Atlantis anywhere in the
> Atlantic.  There are few sites anywhere where you could hide a
> sizable continent.  Of course you could place Atlantis on Crete -
> but it hardly fits the description in the Mahatma letters.
>
> Regarding the general sinking and uplifting of continents.
> Continental crust just doesn't founder and sink -- it is very
> buoyant, which is why it is not genrally found in depths of more
> than 2 km of water.  One last attempt to sink a continet was when
> the Indian plate smashed into the Asian plate --- the result were
> the Himalyas.  Given what we now know about these things, it's
> hard to believe the scenario of continents rising from under the
> water and falling - a concept popular in 19th century geology.
> Yes -- the level of the ocean does change -- cyclically, we know
> that.  But that's a global effect.
>
> The fact that the Mahatma letters echo so much of 19th century
> science argues against them having been written by Masters -- who
> ought to know better.  If a writer of these letters is
> castigating Sinnett and contemporary scientists for THEIR poor
> understanding of science, then if he is a Master, you'd think he
> ought to know.  If on the otherhand, what he writes turns out to
> be bullshit, then chances are he isn't a Master.
>
> Paul K.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 19:01:37 -0700
> From: "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@theosophy.com>
> Subject: Re: Atlantis et al.
>
> Paul K:
>
> Hi.
>
> > Some words regarding your reply and K.  Paul's on Atlantis.  I
> > have been involved in my job in the task of reconstructing the
> > history of the North Atlantic since the late Cretaceous.  One
> > rather powerful tool is the new gravity map of the world released
> > by the Dept.  of Defense.  "Discover" magazine had a feature on
> > it last March (?).  The map gives you a picture of the Earth's
> > oceans with a resolution better than 20 km.  You can trace
> > continental spreading since the late Cretaceous on that map - the
> > fracture zones are all mapped in great detail.
>
> It sounds familiar.  I may have photocopied the article when it
> came out.
>
> > Regarding the general sinking and uplifting of continents.
> > Continental crust just doesn't founder and sink -- it is very
> > buoyant, which is why it is not genrally found in depths of more
> > than 2 km of water.  ...  it's hard to believe the scenario of
> > continents rising from under the water and falling - a concept
> > popular in 19th century geology.  Yes -- the level of the ocean
> > does change -- cyclically, we know that.  But that's a global
> > effect.
>
> There are different ways that we can interpret the statements
> about Atlantis.  One is that the "rising" and "sinking" were
> attempts to express what happened in terms of what would be
> understood and accepted at the time, and if the same idea were
> expressed now, it would be expressed in terms of continental
> drift.  (That is, there was land mass where the Atlantic Ocean is
> now, at a time period of perhaps a few million years ago.)
>
> A second description would be in psychological terms.  With this
> key, we have the rising and submergence of a *continent of
> thought*, e.g.  whole astral or archetypal patterns of thinking
> and expression.  This would correspond to major evolutionary
> advances of humanity, rater than to radical changes in land mass.
> Perhaps there were mass migrations at this time.
>
> A third form of submergence would be by ice, as in various ice
> ages, causing cultural and evolutionary adaptations by people.
>
> > The fact that the Mahatma letters echo so much of 19th century
> > science argues against them having been written by Masters -- who
> > ought to know better.
>
> Or it may indicate that they were written primarily for the
> benefit of A.P.  Sinnett, and not as a tretise on science for the
> western world.  Certain materials may have been given a slant
> because of how Sinnett asked his questions, and not always with
> the intent of plainly and openly telling everything that he
> wanted to know.
>
> > If a writer of these letters is castigating Sinnett and
> > contemporary scientists for THEIR poor understanding of science,
> > then if he is a Master, you'd think he ought to know.  If on the
> > otherhand, what he writes turns out to be bullshit, then chances
> > are he isn't a Master.
>
> That's one possibility.  But there are many other possible
> explanations.  The letters, if written and transmitted through
> chelas, could have a certain bias by them, and get some "noise"
> added along with the bona fide information.  Certain materials
> may be intentionally veiled behind an exoteric blind, with no
> intent on giving out scientific (or occult) knowledge.
>
> My inclination when reading a book like "The Mahatma Letters" is
> to ignore or downplay the scientific tidbits, considering them as
> curiosities but not as the latest word on science.  What is said
> would be in response to the science of the last century, and
> often, perhaps, added for purposes of analogy and metaphor.  The
> intent may have been to get people thinking in a certain way
> scientifically, rather than to tell them *what to think*, to
> point out a direction, rather than paint in the details of what
> will be found along the way.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 9:05:57 EDT
> From: "K Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
> Subject: Re: Atlantis et al.
>
> According to Paul M.M. Kieniewicz:
>
> > The fact that the Mahatma letters echo so much of 19th century
> > science argues against them having been written by Masters -- who
> > ought to know better.
>
> Find me evidence of any *real spiritual Master* of the 19th
> century who knew the truths unveiled by 20th century science--
> and I'll grant your point.  Otherwise, I think your definition of
> "Master" needs some grounding in historical reality.  A person
> can be a recognized authority in an esoteric tradition, one
> qualified to teach others, without therefore knowing everything
> there is to know.  Your argument as stated would seem to rule out
> the existence of any spiritual Masters in the 19th century.
> Isn't it more plausible to recognize that indeed there were, but
> that their knowledge was not quite as extensive as described in
> Theosophical literature?
>
> > If a writer of these letters is castigating Sinnett and
> > contemporary scientists for THEIR poor understanding of science,
> > then if he is a Master, you'd think he ought to know.  If on the
> > otherhand, what he writes turns out to be bullshit, then chances
> > are he isn't a Master.
> >
> > Paul K.
>
> Not a Master of Science, at least.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:34:40 -0500
> From: "Paul M Kieniewicz" <pmmkien@main.com>
> Subject: The Masters and Science
>
> K.  Paul and Chuck indicate ( sorry for paraphrasing but my
> computer only gets this 'digest thing' and I haven't figured out
> how to undigest it)...  that the scientific discrepancies in the
> ML can be explained because the Masters are neither physical
> scientists nor omniscient.  I agree with that statement.  However
> -- it raises even more disturbing questions.
>
> Here am I, a Master receiving Sinnett's ridiculous questions.  My
> reply would be (following the above argument) the following:
>
> "My Dear Sinnett,
>
> I am neither a physical scientist nor omniscient so I can't
> possibly answer your questions.  How am I to know what the sun is
> made of, or the speed of light or the mechanism for heating the
> Earth? Go ask your own scientists such things.  Sure I can give
> you my clairvoyant guess but it's probably wrong.  As for
> Atlantis - hey, we're talking about a myth which is what Plato
> said it was all along.  This is occult history - mythology - not
> physical history.  Atlantis is in the same class as Shamballa
> (located near Mount Meru) so don't go looking for it in the
> Atlantic."
>
> BUT - that was not the answer.  The writer instead has the air of
> someone who claims to know these things and claims to know the
> answers to Sinnett's questions.  Thus I find the the following to
> be likely scenarios:
>
> I.  The letters were written by HPB.  Like the ML writer, she
> made similar pronouncements on science - claiming often to know
> better than the scientists of the day.
>
> II.  The ML writer was deliberately setting him/her self up as an
> authority on science in order to somehow further Sinnett's
> spiritual growth.
>
> III.  The ML writer was part of a "conspiracy" on the part of the
> Masters carried out for the benefit of our planet to combat
> materialism (or to some other mysterious end) that involved
> disemenating a false science called theosophy.
>
> I find scenario II unlikely, as I cannot comprehend what
> spiritual benefit Sinnett could derive from the elliptic answers
> that he got to his questions.  Unless it was, so that he should
> quit bugging the Masters and rely on his own horse sense, because
> they are only feeding him nonsense.
>
> If scenario (I) is excluded because the physical evidence (which
> I haven't studied) is against it, we're left with scenario (III).
>
> Actually I find no difficulty with scenario III and in the
> possibility that theosophy is an elaborate hoax perpetrated by
> certain individuals for the good of humanity - and that HPB could
> have been an unsuspecting victim in this scheme.  But in that
> case, I wouldn't bother studying the material at least not the
> 19th century stuff, unless it can be independently verified.
> Never mind the scientific pronouncements, even the occult
> teaching would be suspect.
>
> I suspect that somewhere in Tibet, some individuals are right now
> having quite a good laugh.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Paul K.

to be continued??........