Theos-Talk Archives (March 2000 Message tt00035)

Dear Reed:

RE: This book  I want to get a copy.  I can send a check.  I have
not established any credit card security line, etc... haven't had
time or any interest up t now.

So tell me how much, please.

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

2.		RE:  Olcott's  O D L (6 Series.)

This was published, starting as a serial, in the March 1892 issue
of
THE THEOSOPHIST, on p. 323.  It is Vol. 13 of that Magazine

I also see your response to David on the subject of carrying in
BN Bookshop the ODL series by Olcott.

I sent you some notes already on that.  It is biased and kind of
murky -- as it reflects Olcott's own personal attitudes and
struggles as a  "probationary chela."

Olcott apparently changed his attitude after the death of HPB.
And it would seem that he conceived  Judge was putting on a
political move to try to take the Presidency away form him. (1892
charges made by AB to WQJ (see old THEOS. MVT -- 1875-1925
 pp. --see my notes and pages below --  ).  Judge had no desire
for the presidency he was suffering from the residual effects of
Chagres (backwater) fever.  Also Judge did not want to go to
Adyar at all, but would only do so if compelled by duty.

Olcott had developed (after 1885) when he had forced HPB to go to
Europe, some distrust of HPB.

Note that it was HPB who had originally been instrumental in
initiating him into the 2nd Section TS and was technically his
TEACHER placed there by the Master, who had been present when
Olcott and Judge took their PLEDGES in 1874 or 1875 (this is my
surmise -- no proof on it).  Judge was his COMPANION, and by his
work in resuscitating Theosophy in America had become HPB's
trusted AGENT.  Is should be noted that Olcott was also made an
Agent by HPB to develop in India and Asia the same work that She
and Judge were doing in Europe and America.  But Olcott did
nothing with it at all.

After HPB's death Olcott came to London and stayed there at the
home of a Miss H. Muller.  he came to consult with A B  and WQJ
on the future of the TS.  After that AB got some evidence that
there had been some impropriety involving Olcott, and she
hastened to se tit before Judge in New York.  Later at his
request, she went across the Atlantic to lay it all before him.
This matter is covered by THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT 1875-1925
(1st Edition) pp. 329 331 405 425 605 646  (THEOSOPHY, VOL. 10,
P., 403) .  Mr. Judge sent a letter to Olcott.  Olcott denied the
charges  (pp.  332 335) but resigned the presidency.   In
corroboration Emmett Small, Editor of the ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST,
San Diego,  published an article in the December 1895 issue of
that magazine giving the details.  Title:  THE RESIGNATION
MYSTERY, 1892.

To doubt one's teacher (or one's comrade in Occultism) without
saying so directly, and querying their motives and actions, is
tantamount to harboring or spreading GOSSIP.  And then to work
against that teacher behind his/her back is reprehensible.
Anyway his attitude developed and then became an obsession.  For
a while at the end of 1888 it was abated by the letter Master
sent him on the SS SHANNON  (LFTMW I, P. 50).

He began writing the ODL  (OLD DIARY LEAVES) and began publishing
them as a regular monthly serial in THE THEOSOPHIST beginning
with Vol. 13, p. 323,  March 1892.

I find the first review of its issuance in PATH  Vol. 7, p. 126.
You will find reviews progressively are made in PATH to this
series from then on under the Magazine Department Heading:
LITERARY NOTES.  I have seen these in PATH Vols. 7, 8, 9, 10, ...
The reviews grow sharp as Olcott is seen to be unfair to and
begins to report his doubts of, and subsequently begins attacks
on HPB.  (Who is unable to defend herself or set the record
straight.)

In this regard, there is an Articles written on this in THE
ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST, Edited by Emmett Small in San Diego:
September 1972,  pp. 2 to 5 gives an accurate account.  If you
would like a copy I can make one and send it to you.

In THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT 1875-1925  (1st Edition) on p. 140-1
is a characterization of the ODL as being written by a "chela on
probation."  It involves a view of his struggles.

If you would like a synopsis that is fair of the ODLs why not
refer to Michael GOMES  bibliographical review of Theosophical
Documents which he published in 1994 through the GARLAND PRESS
New York.

It is titled: THEOSOPHY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY - An Annotated
Bibliography.  I think it was pretty high priced around $ 50 or
60. 00.  Gomes' notes on the series begins at the bottom of
p. 69 and goes to p. 72.  He gives a fair synopsis without going
into the value of the author's attitudes.  He treats it as an
historical record.  He does not say if it is right or wrong.

Incidentally this Gomes book is a valuable tool in keeping track
of actual documents of the early part of the Theosophical
Movement.  His opinions are on the whole unbiased.  It however
(from my point of view) lacks an INDEX of persons that are
named -- as their works, or references to them are scattered all
over the book and it takes time to trace a full record as there
are 9 chapters and the entries are made only once in one of the
selected subject chapters that Gomes uses.

It, however has the virtue of being fairly neutral and can tell
us where to find any PRIMARY source document.

Dal


  Dallas

dalval@nwc.net

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Reed Carson
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 6:57 AM
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Your: OCEANS ARE PUDDLES


Dallas,

The title is "Cataclysm!: Compelling Evidence of a cosmic
catastrophe in
9500 B.C.".

Authors are D.S. Allan & J.B. Delair.

The book is available in the Blavatsky Net Bookstore which is at
www.blavatsky.com.  The store can also be reached from the upper
left side
of the homepage at www.blavatsky.net.  Within the store just
click on
"Atlantis found" on the left side of the front page of the store.

We are hoping people will buy the book from the BN store to help
support
this site.

Thanks for enquiring.

Reed


At 06:19 AM 3/10/00 -0800, you wrote:
>
>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.
>


-- 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.


-- 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.