Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tt00003)

Richard Ihle writes,

> I don't quite get it.  I agree that the article is important and
> thought-provoking.  The part I don't get is how it shows that
> modern archeology is approaching HPB's teaching so much.

I didn't say that.  I agreed with the article, "Root-Races and
Geologic Periods" by William A.  Savage, that modern medicine is
accepting more holistic ideas, modern biology is taking a look at
morphogenesis proposed by Rupert Sheldrake, and physics seriously
considers the possibility of consciousness as a factor in
phenomena, witness the recent book by Amit Goswami, THE
SELF-AWARE UNIVERSE.  Likewise, it is not unreasonable to expect
that archeology will SOMEDAY come closer to the S.D., given that
many other fields are doing so NOW.  This article may be a step
toward dialogue, thus faciliating "approach."

> Unfortunately, the only example of similarity of sequence given
> is the agreement that dinosaurs left the scene before the rise of
> the mammals,

No, this is where we should go back and read the original article
again.  The S.D.  and modern science give almost entirely the
same sequences in the SAME order, but with very different time
frames, one making things contemporaneous where another says they
weren't and vice versa.  The S.D.  will agree that plants arose
before reptiles, that the big dinosaurs were being extinguished
while smaller forms were taking over, that mammal forms emerged
before modern man, etc.  The question is not sequence but time
frame, and of course CAUSE.

> Thus, while perhaps I "didn't quite get it" enough to be as
> "inspired" by the article as Rich was

What inspired me was not that current science and HPB agree on
these things, because as the article pointed out--they don't.
What was inspiring was to see someone sit down, work out the
dates that the S.D.'s teaching implies, compare those dates to
current science, and speculate on how they might be reconciled,
i.e.  inconstancy in radiometric dating.  I was inspired by the
dialogue between Theosophical teachings and scientific ones, and
I think we don't do enough of that.  Science proceeds along its
own--largely materialistic--path, while most Theosophists,
including ULT Theosophists, are generally content to study their
own teachings, quite ignoring other Theosophical authors and
current scientific ideas.  (There are exceptions to this of
course).

All of which is why I was so delighted to read this excellent
article.

Rich