Theos-Talk Archives (August 1997 Message tt00025)

Rich:

> 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.

Sigh.

Where do Blavatsky or the Mahatmas state that trans-species
reincarnation does not happen?

> (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.)

In modern physics, please show a case where that has happened, as
opposed to the current theory being proven to be a special case
of a more general theory.

> 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.

But she never states that the new race is the same physical
species.

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

So, you are a reincarnation of your great-great-grandfather?

> 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.

Yes, our monads inhabited those bodies. But nowhere does it say
that those bodies were humanoid. Of course, nowhere does it say
that they weren't, but I will get to that in a bit.

> 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.

Pituitary giants are maximum about 9 feet tall, and they have a
great deal of trouble moving around, because at that height the
human frame is already breaking apart. Now, there are creatures
alive today that have near-human monads, but have reached a dead
end, have the size range that Blavatsky describes, and live in
the water. They are, of course, the whales & dolphins. Note the
stories of whales & dolphins helping people. Also note the story
of the Garden of Eden, where the serpent, previously high on the
evolutionary pole, hands over the monad to the human species.
Which is not to say that the dolphins/whales were the 4th root
race, or even the remnants thereof. It simply shows that there
are other possibilities.

> As for 50 foot frames, HPB makes clear they weren't entirely
> "physical" but gradually emerging from the astral,

Please give me an operative definition of the astral.

> in which case I assume the force of gravity would be mollified.

On what basis do you make that assumption?

> 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.

A) 19th century science, not current science. Current science
has been heavily influenced by theosophical principles. Once
again, I'll cover that in my conclusion.

B) Yes, even magnetism and gravity are not constants. Blavatsky
stated it, Einstein proved it. That is WHY, for example, lower
density cannot explain a 50 foot tall human. So...

> 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.

You are interpreting theosophy using a Newtonian mechanical point
of view.

> Yet 65 million years ago (according to "orthodox" dating methods)
> huge dinosaurs, 40 or 50 feet long, roamed the earth in huge
> numbers.

Without a humanoid physiology. And they were not our physical
anscestors.

> 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?.

There is not room here to give a course in physics, chemistry,
and biology. Understanding science takes work, in spite of the
post-modernist belief that science is bunk and ego is all.

Yes, there is much mistaken in science, especially in medicine
and fields where designing 100% valid experiments is nearly
impossible, due to the huge number of unmeasurable factors. But,
if theosophy is going to live, it can't pretend that science is
still at the 19th century level. Contrary to postmodernist
dogma, Einstein did not disprove Newton, he showed that Newtonian
mechanics was a special case of a more general theory. Contrary
to head-in-the-sand theosophists, science does not state that
life is not a basic property of matter. The scientific position
is:

1) We do not have an operative definition of life. You cannot
prove that something exists if you can't even state what it is.

2) There is no KNOWN unexplained phenomenon which could be
explained by life being a basic property of matter.

What we, as theosophists, need to do is to encourage scientists
and philosophers to create an operative definition of life, and
to look for it as an explanation to currently unexplained
phenomena.

Remember, what we perceive as physical reality, while not the
whole of reality, is certainly part of reality, and therefore
valid. And science is the measurement and explanation of what we
perceive to be reality. Science may only tell part of the story,
but what it tells is true, just not the whole truth. If
scientific knowledge says one thing, and your interpretation of
theosophy says another, then you must consider whether it is the
scientists who are wrong, or if it is your interpretation that is
wrong. And if you think your guess is as good as any scientist's
about physical reality, I defy you to fly in an airplane designed
by someone with no training who used "intuition".