Aug 22, 1997 07:12 AM
by Bart Lidofsky
> > So, you are a reincarnation of your great-great-grandfather?
> Quite possibly.
But not necessarily.
> compelling evidence to disbelieve. Rather a few quotes from HPB
> might show that she does mean PHYSICAL DESCENT from one root race
> to another (despite mutations and changes, brought about
> deliberately through consciousness and karma):
Not "might show" but "can be interpreted as meaning". But if
another interpretation matches the physical evidence, while
another contradicts the physical evidence, shouldn't we use
Occam's Razor, and use the one that matches the physical evidence
until proven otherwise?
> expression 'petrified' instead of 'ossified' is curious. The
> 'back eye' which is of course the PINEAL GLAND, now so-called,
> the small pea-like mass of gray nervous matter attached to the
> back of the third ventricle of the brain, is said to almost
> invariably contain MINERAL CONCRETIONS and SAND, and 'nothing
Why do you say, "of course the PINEAL GLAND"? That implies that
there is such compelling evidence that there is no question.
What is this compelling evidence?
> > This is clearly a gradually evolution from one sub-race to the
> > next, by direct descent. Why would new, emergent human races
> > preserve now-obsolete organs? Again,
> SD II pg. 333-4: "Thus the Fourth Race Atlanteans were developed
> from a nucleus of Northern Lemurian Third Race Men, centered,
> roughly speaking, toward a point of land in what is now the
> mid-Atlantic Ocean."
But is she talking about bodies, or monads? The physical evidence
points to the latter, and against the former. So what is gained
by ignoring the physical evidence?
> One may certainly say that HPB is making all of this up, but I
> don't think it is fair to state that she is not suggesting direct
> physical evolution one race from another (granted, guided by
> spiritual and conscious impuleses and design). The states that
> the fourth race emerged gradually from a nucleus of Third Race
> folks. What more could we want as far as clarity on her part?
But it IS unclear. The entire Secret Doctrine is unclear.
Remember, the book THE SECRET DOCTRINE, is NOT the secret
doctrine, but a book ABOUT the secret doctrine, and, at that,
only a bare outline of a small part of it.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application