[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Neanderthal Man

Aug 21, 1997 00:01 AM
by Richard Taylor


I agree with you re: HPB's primary disagreement with Darwin.
However I think HPB goes further. Many have read the S.D.
carefully, and they will say that HPB states clearly: from the
middle of the 3rd root race onwards (and she gives the specific
date of 18 million years and a little over) humans reproduced
sexually. That would imply that those 3rd race people were our
genetic ancestors, even if CURRENT genetic understanding doesn't
support such a theory. (The best thing about modern science is
that if you don't like something, just hang on five minutes, the
"facts" will soon be different.)

HPB describes how one race and one cycle gradually blend into the
next, overlapping for many thousands of years, while the new
"alien" types gradually take shape, then predominate, and
eventually the old types are wiped out.

HPB claims regularly that the real history of the human race is
important, not merely as an antiquarian curiosity, but because WE

Our monads inhabited those bodies. Their karma is our karma, and
by understanding this and accepting it, we can work through that
old Atlantean muck and become better, higher, nobler creatures.
Additionally, throughout the S.D. (again, I can find references
if necessary) HPB suggests that the physical remains of our
ancestors ARE there, mostly deep under water or under the earth,
and the few over-sized human remains we do find are relegated by
scientists to "pituitary giants" etc.

As for 50 foot frames, HPB makes clear they weren't entirely
"physical" but gradually emerging from the astral, in which case
I assume the force of gravity would be mollified. Further, HPB
seems equally clear that the earth, its material atoms, and even
its magnetism and gravity are not constants, but far more
changeable than current science admits. All are variables of
deeper forces we don't yet fully understand. If bodies were less
dense 18 million years ago, or the entire matter of mother earth
less condensed, more ethereal, certainly bodies could be quite
huge. Today, even a human reaching 7 feet seems to become
unnaturally skinny and leggy. Yet 65 million years ago
(according to "orthodox" dating methods) huge dinosaurs, 40 or 50
feet long, roamed the earth in huge numbers.

Why should it be so difficult to believe in large human ancestors
(even though all humans are much smaller today) when we have
plenty of evidence of large reptilian ancestors (even though all
reptiles are much smaller today)?

If dinosaur bodies can support 20, 30 even 40 tons of flesh, why
not (semi-)human frames?


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application