Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00179)

> From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
> Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky versus Bailey on "Christ"
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:45:35 -0500
>
> Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:
> > Alice Bailey's teaching on the Christ is what I would consider
> > a "CRUDE literalism" or what HPB characterizes as "a dead
> > letter belief."
>
> 	As one into science, and a belief that scientific studies have been and
> will continue to approach theosophical teachings, one of my problems
> with Bailey is her insistence on the etheric planet, "Vulcan", in the
> place where Vulcan wasn't (and several astrology books attribute THAT to
> Blavatsky, as well).
>
> 	For those who are unaware, around 1860, it was discovered that
> Mercury's orbit wasn't quite what it should be. The astronomers made
> their calculations, and figured out that a small planet inside the orbit
> of Mercury in a specific position would account for this. They even
> named the planet, "Vulcan". And looked for it. And looked for it. And
> could not find it.
>
> 	It wasn't until 1916 that Einstein (who was REPORTED to have had a
> copy of THE SECRET DOCTRINE on his desk)
I've heard that too. I've also heard/read that he lifted his most 
revolutionary theory from his first wife.
Fwiw, for anyone else interested in trivia, after Einstein's radical 
relativity theorems came out and he was forced to flee Germany, there was 
established the official Party line on physics in Germany- classic theories 
were to be taught and adhered to, and "degraded Jewish physics",i.e. 
everything based on the Relativity Theory and whatever else Einstein and 
other Jewish physicists came up with was to be verboten.
Therefore, Germany's nuclear program prior to and during WWII was doomed by 
"Noble German physics", as enforced by clowns like Goebbels, etc. If you can 
imagine Heisenberg slapping his head in dismay- although afaik, he didn't 
want to give Germany a nuclear device.....but at the stupidity his nation 
was embracing...

> came out with an alternative
> explanation; certain things which were considered to be constants in
> Newtonian laws (such as mass and the relative passage of time) weren't
> so constant after all. By assuming that the speed of light in a vacuum
> is the same regardless of the relative velocity of the measurer,
> Einstein came up with a group of logical conclusions that exactly
> explained the variations in Mercury's orbit; no Vulcan was necessary.
>
> 	Whether or not he had read THE SECRET DOCTRINE, this can be marked as
> the beginning of Theosophical ideas moving into modern science.
> Therefore, use of the planet Vulcan, even as an "etheric" planet, is, to
> my way of thinking, anti-Theosophical.
>
> 	Bart
I think Bailey states in her Esoteric Astrology that that planet Vulcan was 
in the process of physical degradation during that same time period, so that 
aberrations of Mercury's orbit then would not necessarily correspond to what 
they would be now, for instance. I forget what significance she attributed 
to it- perhaps that its energy/influence would likewise be less physical.
Given the massive in-depth amount of work she published on the esoteric 
schools, I can't believe you don't have more to gripe about.

My own Master, who was quite clairvoyant, used to remark that since there 
was not only an etheric solar system correlating with the physical, but also 
5 or 7 other planetary systems- that he couldn't see the usefulness of 
mundane astrology. I was very involved with astrology at the time, and that 
threw me for a loop.
He was quite in endorsement of both HPB and AAB, btw. Used to lecture on 
the Rounds and Races and gave personal past-life anecdotes of lemuria, 
atlantis, etc.

regards-

Ali

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963