|
|
| [MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |
| [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Apr 22, 2001 02:31 AM
by dalval14
|
Saturday, April 21, 2001 DearBill
Quinn I think
you are right. Evolution
is guided by Nature Those
truly interested in Nature and its processes do not interfere with its workings
(which would be presumptuous -- as we don’t know what they are). The whole
process of EVOLUTION is so vast as to include at one end the Monadic “life-units”
that are smaller than even the sub-atomic particles we have become aware ofand
have studied in the past 80 years or so, and the ASTRONOMICALLY huge bodies,
distances and times which are revealed in the past dozen years by the use of
the Hubble telescope, etc… If we
start theorizing on meager data, we, may derive conclusions that either please
us or which simply are
tailored to fit in with the earlier hypotheses evolved years ago by authorities
and scholars of an earlier time -- who were respected then, but whose theories
have not yet been updated. (As an
example we cannot shake off the theory that Man evolved from the Ape form. As the S.D. shows us, back when those
theories were first evolved there was anatomical evidence to show that it was Impossible
for a man who walks ERECT to be derived from one whose anatomy and physiological
had made him a CLIMBER. Let me
offer some data from the S.D.: There is a
rule (law) in anatomy, physiology that is called the LAW OF PERMANENT
CHARACTERIZATION. It states in
brief that there can be no “descent” from an inferior ancestralform into a
superior modern form. “It is
stated that: “an organized being cannot be a descendant of another whose
development is in an inverse order to his own.” [ see S.D. II 56-8fn 257-9 646 666-7 688-9 733 ] Comparative
skeletal remains of equal antiquity of the gibbon (ape) and man show no examples
of “derived changes.” ( S.D. II
681-2fn) Under the
Law of CONSTANT PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT the time between the Miocene periodand
the present is apparently too short to permit the vast change from an arboreal
ape to become an erect walking man
(S.D. II 260-1 679 ) Mr. De Quatrefages
a French anatomist drew attention to the skeletal differences between man and
ape before and during H.P.B.’s time He stated that the man-ape likenesses had been exaggerated (S.D.
II 87fn 56fn 426 645 651 654 662 681 711 745fn 746) One
of the most important findings has been that the average cranial cubic contents
show that the highest ape-cranium was about 34 cubic inches (gorilla,
chimpanzee) and the lowest human savage (Hottentot, Australian Aborigine) was about 98 cubic inches. (S.D. II 193Ffn 522-3fn 168fn) He stated that it was far more likely that the apes had
descended from men (S.D. II 287-8 646
666-7 682 687fn ) Fortunately
Evolution does not depend on the views or constructs of those men of science of
the past and our present. Science
of observation is respected but scientific theories and hypotheses derived
therefrom which try to reconstruct the past usually fail. Occult science and their records are
based on actual observations made at the time. (S.D. I 272-3) We should
also remember that the sciences of today, which we are going by, are relatively
new -- about 350 to 400 years old since the R.C. church released her grip on
research in the West. Fortunately
countries like India and Tibet were left out of the control of the destructive
and fanatical religions, which
like Islam under Caliph Omar swept through Egypt in the 7th century destroying
its ancient libraries and temples. We look at
the ancient temple complexes of Memphis, Thebes, Gaza, etc. in Egypt; and
Ellora, Ajanta, Karli, and Khajuraho (to mention only a few) in India; we visit Ankor Wat, Bayon, and Ankor Thom in Cambodia. Then our minds fly to the Pyramid
complexes of Mexico, and moving south we visit Copan, Cancun, and the ruinsof
jungle temples in Guatemala and Honduras.
From there, we visit Lake Titicaca and the ancient Tiahuanaco of Peru; flying over to Europe we look at the
remains of temples in Greece, Turkey, Italy, North Africa. We see Avesbury and Stonehenge in England, Carnac in Brittany, and
literally thousands of barrows, dolmens, menhirs, and other monuments from the dim past; (like the ancient stone carved statues in
Central Asia at Bamian (see S.D. II 336-40) -- recently destroyed by the fanatical
Islamic Taliban government of Afghanistan), and we wonder at the engineering
and other arts (such as hydrology and the control of flood waters for
agricultural irrigation) that the
ancients had -- some of which have not yet been improved on, or rediscovered,
by our engineers and scientists today. The Occult
observations have been progressing for millions of years -- a fact we find
difficult to concede, as our records have such a brief life, and on the whole,
we are very proud of our “discoveries.”
It is difficult to concede
antiquity, design and intelligence to Nature, or to accept that our newly
developed knowledge may be flawed (not in its observations, but in its
theoretical extrapolations and hypothetical conclusions. We need only review the changes in
scientific views for the past 150 years to see how many of our concepts have
altered. Yet, Nature has always
been there, and we are merely rediscovering what has always been at hand. There are
literally thousands of things to keep us occupied in verifying them for a very
long time. I do not think wewill
ever lack for a subject of profound interest as we inquire into our own
personal and individual composition.
Are we truly immortals? Do we
reincarnate? What are the powers
and objectives any man may aspire to?
What is wisdom? How should
true ecology be administered? Why
does Nature display such tremendous diversity? Why do cataclysms occur? And so on …. Bestwishes, Dallas ======================================== -----Original Message----- To all those interested in defining what
can change.: |