Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00143)

Hi Bart. Thanks. You are always good with specific information. I have to go
to work now, but maybe I will make a second reply later. A brief comment
below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bart Lidofsky" <bartl@sprynet.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World "THE RETURN OF THE GIANTS"


> wry wrote:
> >> Because this subject is being discussed here, I hope that many
> >> readers, especially newcomers to theosophy, will find this very
> >> interesting and important scientific article about "Giants" in
> >> THEOSOPHY magazine to be very informative and useful;
> >
> > Wry: Important? Useful? Oh yeah.
>
> The importance is that Blavatsky described humans of the 4th Root Race
> as being from 4 to 40 feet tall (or long, depending on how you look at
> it). Therefore, these finds would seem to verify Blavatsky's words, or,
> more precisely, a bunch of people's INTERPRETATIONS of Blavatsky's words
> (nowhere, for example, did she ever state that the 4th Root Race had a
> humanoid physical body, nor is there any good reason to assume that it
> did).


WRY++++++Bart, to me this all does not seem at all significant or important.
It is using Madame Blavatsky as a reference point in a way that to me seems
very unwholesome. No offense meant, but the material below sounds to me like
someone babbling from a nut house. It is NOT significant or important. This
is not merely a matter of my word against yours, as I believe this is
OBVIOUS to any even partially attentive human being with common sense.This
material has nothing to do with solving the problems of humanity or
establishing a universal brotherhood, whether this is or is not the aim of
theosophy. The focus is incorrect and wll lead to chaos. Can you not see
this? People fritter their whole lives away talking about irrelevant
material and then die like dogs. By this I mean material that is irrelvant
to the development of a human being. Why do they do this? Because they
believe-think they are immortal and there is therefore no urgency. I hope
people shape up, or I will not be able to stay around. I have said something
about learning the language of the ancients when this list reaches
two-hundred. That was a hasty statemnt which I now retract. It will not be
happening until-when and if-the appropriate atmosphere is established. .
Sincerely, Wry.

>
> This flies in the face of known physics, where if a human body gets to
> 8 feet or so, the structure cannot hold itself. And this is not
> conjecture; this has been very well proven by all sorts of
> experimentation, not to mention actual cases of humans who grow beyond a
> certain height. For example, Andre Roussimoff, aka Andre the Giant, was
> "only" 7' 4", and quite physically able, but died at an early age
> because his circulatory system couldn't handle his size.
>
> Let's compare a 6' tall man, about 180 pounds, with a 42' tall man (7x
> the size). Given the same physical structure, he would weigh about 300
> tons. However, a humanoid bone structure that size would only support
> about 40 tons, and then only if it were made out of sturdier materials.
> It would be as if that 6 foot tall man suddenly found himself carrying
> 1400 pounds.
>
> There ARE ways a creature that large can exist. Shorter and thicker
> legs, a smaller head, a shorter and thicker neck (note that a giraffe
> has a "normal" sized body, just longer bones in the neck and forelegs),
> a different posture, or living in water for support (note that a
> hippopotamus has all of the above).
>
> However, while Blavatsky contends that the reincarnating part of the
> body cannot move to a lower species, there is no reason why it can't
> move to a higher, but different one. And there is nothing in the primary
> literature of Theosophy that states that you must be the reincarnation
> of one of your ancestors. Certainly, the first root race could not
> possibly have been humanoid in form, as they were supposedly barely
> physical at all. Therefore, it is logical to consider that our
> reincarnating principles (let's call them "souls" for short) were not
> necessarily contained in the bodies of the physical ancestors of our
> current bodies. Blavatsky's use of the term "human" to refer
> interchangeably to the ephemeral body, soul, and both, so it is entirely
> a matter of interpretation.
>
> I just go by the rule that if one interpretation is supported by the
> evidence, while another goes contradicts the evidence, use the one that
> is supported until evidence comes along that contradicts it (an
> application of Occam's razor, "Do not unnecessarily multiply entities").
>
> Bart
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>