Theos-Talk Archives (March 2000 Message tt00029)

March 10th 2000

Dear Reed:



Many thanks for your comments on the RISE and FALL of CONTINENTS,
OCEANS, and the CHANGE in inclination of the POLES, etc.

It is not clear if the name of the book is CATACLYSM .

Could you please let me have the Title and the Authors and
Publishers.

I am sure that a good number of students of Theosophy would like
to be able to read and review the evidence presented.  I know
that I would.

Do help,

Thanks

Dallas


dalval@nwc.net

==========================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Reed Carson [mailto:carson@blavatsky.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:37 PM
To: basic@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-basic] oceans are puddles


Dear Bill,

I was delighted to hear your remarks and you have affected my
thinking, I
think, for the better.  Let me say first that in my opinion, what
you are
saying is very important.  I think other people should be giving
heed to
what you say on the importance of that book, Cataclysm!, and on
the state of
modern science.

So I don't mislead you yet again, let me say definitely, I never
supported
the glacier proposal that Dennis advocated.  As you say, the
glacier
explanation is antiquated by current science.  I was simply going
as far as
I could to give a consideration of the other person's view.  But
if I
mislead you then I was not communicating clearly enough and I
have thought
about that.  I should have made my position more clear for the
sake of
others on the list.

Also I certainly do agree that HPB is much closer to the truth of
the cause
of such crises in the earth.  My own view is that she is not only
"closer",
but she is right.  My intent with all those quotes from HPB was
to show how
much knowledge is in the SD and to work up to the Theosophical
view of the
earth going up and down.  This is a differing view, as you may
know, from
the "modern" plate techtonics theory in which the emphasis is on
plates
moving sideways.  Again I am delighted if those quotes served to
persuade
you that she knew more.

You say: "You seem to be justifying the old scientific view".  I
should
'fess up.  When I saw the summary of the book my jaw figuratively
dropped
and I placed the book into the bookstore because of its high
confirmation of
Theosophy. I am delighted that you have found it and brought
attention to it
on this list.  Until now, no one has mentioned it.

Let me quote some points from that book that will end up being
quite
relevant to Theosophy, and in my opinion at least, to other
discussions
currently occuring on this list.

First we dispose of the glacier theory.  On page 67 the book says

"The orthodox concept of immense sprawling polar ice-sheets
which, after
long ages, slowly melted away, is, like the modified versions of
it
developed since, so full of fatal shortcomings and so at variance
with
inescapable field evidence, that the standard notion of the Ice
Age must now
be regarded as funamentally flawed and almost certainly a
chimera.  Indeed,
any application of it hemispherically, as was formerly common
practice, is
undoubltedly fallacious."

This is strong language but well supported. Let's move on. In
that book on
page 179 it says:

"despite their relatively great overall volume and the
tremendouss pressure
they exert upon the crust, compared to the size of the Earth the
oceans are
little more than puddles occupying hollows on its surface, and
immeasurably
smaller than the oceans of semi-fluid molten magma that underlie
the crust.
Indeed, the estimated total amount of magma within the Earth
exceeds the
oceans in volume 1000:1 and in mass 5000:1."

In other words, after disposing of the glacier theory, we need to
put the
earth and oceans in a different perspective relative to each
other.

Here is the quote that I think confirms HPB's views on page
186-187 where
the book quotes another source on the Atlantis convulsion:

"Based on spherical volumes, with the diameter of the Earth about
8,000
miles, it can be seen that the oceans of magma are infinitely
greater than
the relatively thin and shallow pools of water lying on top of
the Earth's
crust.
Hence the tidal upheaval from within the Earth must have been
very much
greater than the tidal upheaval on the Earth's surface, involving
her
relatively minute oceans.  Therefore upheaval or thrust
internally and
compression externally must have been simultaneous; only their
proportions
were different. With this volume of magma in tidal upheaval, the
Earth's
crust acted something like a bellows.  And Earth's relatively
shallow oceans
merely washed around as the Earth's crust heaved and sagged."

This is what HPB said!!  Land goes up and down - the final
conclusion of my
last letter.

The book proves the reasonableness (of HPB's view) by another
quote on p32:

"Either the land must have sunk two or three miles, or the sea
must once
have been two or three miles lower than now.  Either conclusion
is
startling.  If the sea was once two miles lower, where would all
the extra
water have gone?"

Now by the way, how did she know?  Did the masters "reconstruct"
this
knowledge?  From what?  Did they "reconstruct" it when it has
taken so much
of even the science of the just past century to reach this
conclusion?  I
think the answer is simple.  They didn't forget it.  The same way
they
didn't forget other information.

On an entirely other point, here is the text describing the book
in the
bookstore:

"A student reading the statements of Blavatsky in the late 19th
century
could easily despair of their validity. She said the earth had
tilted on its
axis in the past [which it shouldn't have done due the principle
in physics
of conservation of angular momentum]. She asserted repeatedly
that there had
been a civilization of Atlantis and gave details from her
training with
teachers who preserved the information. She argued repeatedly for
the
correctness of corroborating myths and legends. Now if one reads
this book,
Cataclysm, one finds her assertions validated with a torrent of
scientific
evidence accumulated in the 20th century. The book is filled with
meat and
yet written in a style that is easy to digest and understand. But
here is
our most dramatic point: One of Blavatsky's teachers wrote a
letter to
Sinnett in 1882 stating flatly that Atlantis sunk "11,446 years
ago". That
is 9,564 BC. After extensive combining of different scientific
evidence,
this book concludes that an earth-wide catastrophe occurred
[suitable to
sink Atlantis] around 9,577. The scientific estimated date
differs by just
13 years from the date given by those who preserved the records!"

This is astonishing!  One of the masters asserted in 1882 that
they knew the
exact year of the sinking of Atlantis!  And now, after this book
combines
much much evidence, it is found that the best scientific
evidence, when
averaged together, suggests that an earth-cataclysm occured in
the same time
period.  And the scientifically determined date is within 13
years of that
stated by the masters. !

Again the same questions arise.  If the masters "reconstructed"
Theosophy,
contrary to what they say, then how did they reconstruct this
exact date?
Is the correspondence with the scienticfic view a coincidence?
Read the
book and you won't conclude that.  I think the answer is again
simple. They
didn't forget when it occured.  As they didn't forget other
things.

Bill, there are other ways in which this book relates to the
teachings of
HPB.  I recommend you note p 182 and the observation that the
inclination of
the axis of rotation of the earth has changed.  Then you can find
the same
thing in Theosophy, at least in general terms.

Bill, how did you like the interweaving of myth and science?  You
can find
HPB asserting the truth in myth many times and ways.  And the
mythical
figures in that book are also mentioned by HPB but I don't recall
the
details.  Also the interaction of cosmic bodies as considered in
the book
remind me much of similar comments by HPB but I don't have quotes
at my
fingertips - and this letter is getting long.

Personally I think there are numerous other little items that of
use to
Theosophists, concerning the Gobi desert and others.
Unfortunately I can
only skim the book and will have to leave this work of detailed
comparison
to someone else.

While we are on Atlantis and the overarching implications it has,
please
consider again the prediction made by HPB and analysed on the
Atlantis page
on this site.  She asserted that if the mid Atlantic ridge could
be traced
further (than done by the Challenger) that it would proceed
southward into
the South Atlantic under the cape of Good Hope in Africa and up
into the
Indian Ocean.  This century her assertion has been proven true.
It turns out
that the ridge today is known as the path of an important plate
techtonic
boundary.

So I ask "how did she know"?  And more importantly I think, "why
would
'tibet mystics' engaged in reconstruction of a primitive religion
be
concerned with the path of a plate techtonic boundary?  Why would
they care
and how would they know? Any answers?  Here is mine.  That land
mass under
Africa follows the above water connection that connected Lemuria
and
Atlantis, just as asserted by Theosophy. (Which of course relates
to our
topic of evolution if we explore it.)  And how did they know
that?  Simple.
It was remembered.

So Bill there is much to say here but the letter is long enough.
I will add
that because of your challenging my statements I have made
significant
changes in the bookstore in order to communicate more
effectively. I think
you and others will enjoy them if you look.  Many of the changes
are small.
But they are designed to help others more readily find the value
there.
Amongst other changes, today the name of the store was changed to
"Blavatsky
Net Bookstore" for clarity.

Also Bill, if you are enjoying overhauling your view, I recommend
that when
you finish this book, you explore "Forbidden Archeology" in the
store.  It
is very relevant to the topic of evolution.  Theosophy asserts a
history of
an entity reasonably called "man" that is more than 18 million
years?  How
can that possibly be reconciled with traditional science.  The
book I am
recommending provides a sensible answer.  The bones have been
systematically
misclassified.

Also we may observe that these books are not for everyone.
However, as a
collectivity, we Theosophists ought to know that HPB is being
increasingly
confirmed.  Collectively we will need to increase our knowledge
base.

Thanks for your comments,
Reed


At 11:32 PM 3/2/00 EST, you wrote:
>Reed,
>
>After I posted my remarks on the Atlantis discussion, I read
your posting.
>
>All I can say is that you cover a lot more ground, but the new
book CATACLYSM
>goes to even greater depth.  You seem to be justifying the old
scientifid
>view about the role of the Ice Age and idea that the changes
occurred over a
>long period of time that included Lemuria as well as Atlantis.
H.P.B. is
>much closer with her ideas as to the CAUSE of major changes to
the Earth's
>surface..  She recognized that the rearrangement of the
continents was a
>CATACLYSMIC disaster, which was anything but gradual.  From your
comments on
>her remarks  on this subject, it appears to me that she knew
more than she
>was telling.  The new book must be changing a lot of old
geological thinking.
>
>Willgram
>Bill Quinn
>
>---
>Current topic is at
>http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnbasic/basicSyllabus.htm
>You are currently subscribed to bn-basic as:
carson@blavatsky.net
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-bn-basic-5269940B@lists.lyris.net
>


---
Current topic is at
http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnbasic/basicSyllabus.htm
You are currently subscribed to bn-basic as: [dalval@nwc.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-bn-basic-5269940B@lists.lyris.net



-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.