Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00318)

Jan 13 2005

Dear M:

Your note: "Apparently the numerous human sacrifices 
of the Mayans and Aztecs ..."

How do we know this is true?

In my readings concerning archeology, I find that there is a usually a great
difference between the relicts that relate to the earliest worship (?) and
the very latest (and better preserved) ones, as the civilization was then
overwhelmed by invaders and vandals..

In all cases we study the rise and then the downfall of religious systems.
But those two great contrasting eras are not always made clear.

Rarely is distinction is made about the degeneracy of the end phase which
may include horrors such as torture and blood sacrifices.

But the end of a cult and its savage manifestations does not mean that
originally it was not higher and pure in intent, does it? 

I think in the theories evolved by researchers there is a tendency to lump
all the past together as manifestation of savagery rather than a high
civilisation. Yet there is an explanation still needed fr the enormous
monuments we find dotted around the world and which all our vaunted modern
technology cannot begin to duplicate successfully. 


Why don't you access ISIS UNVEILED online and scan through it I think you
will enjoy some aspects of what is there.

Use the CONTENTS at the beginning of each volume and scan the areas that
interest you. I did this when I was 18 and then sat down and really read
the book carefully. I frequently go back to it. 

I have found THEOSOPHY opens up some of the gloomier aspects of pr-history
--and gives hem a light that our attempts at reconstruction on rather flimsy
evidence tends to minimize and denigrate.  

In many ways, we are not fair to our earlier incarnations -- then !!

Are we or not "immortals?" That is large hurdle to leap over. 

Is there adequate evidence or not?

Karma, as a rigid but fair law -- same for all -- and self-administering
all offer Nature, is easier to handle I think. 

Best wishes, 

Dallas



 
-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri 
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 3:35 PM
To: 
Subject: re karma, interpretations

Some thoughts about literal interpretive 
tendencies re "karma":

Apparently the numerous human sacrifices 
of the Mayans and Aztecs were 
(according to Graham Hancock's 
FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS) meant to ward 
off or at least delay another series of 
major world catastrophes like the ones 
brought on by the Ice Age. So I was 
wondering if those sacrificers might be 
said to be somewhat too literally 
interpreting the meaning of karma. I 
don't remember Hancock mentioning 
anything about "karma," in particular, 
in terms of a possible reason for the 
human sacrifices, but seems to me that, 
in light of certain rather literal 
interpretations about karma (even on 
these lists, maybe, to some extent, 
maybe ...), if karma is interpreted in 
its simplistic/literal cause/effect 
terms (as might tend to be the case in 
a world where "esoteric" meanings might 
generally tend to go unnoticed for 
whatever reason ...), and considering 
that according to the Mayan calendar 
there's going to be another 
world-catastastrophe in Dec of 2012 , I 
wonder if there might be some students 
of Theosophy or whoever who might feel 
that they might be able to manipulate 
karma and avert or delay a major 
catastrophe if they do something deadly 
enough in advance (kind of like the 
Mayans and Aztecs ...), thereby (if 
that's their literal thinking) promoting 
the opposite effect of saving the world 
... In other words, I wonder if, 
technically, a literal interpretation of 
karma could be said to logically promote 
human sacrifices (ie, whether or not 
such promotion is voiced or physically 
carried out) for the purpose of averting 
major catastrophes. What does it take 
to wake up from various literal 
interpretative tendencies, I wonder.

I tend to think that what's known as 
"karma" is, basically, an exoteric 
version or interpretive aspect that goes 
along with one's worldview-logic/maya 
in general, by way of whatever model or 
"universe model." And so, as I tend to 
see it, literal interpretations in 
general have much to do with why we're 
here in this "karmic/mayavic" 
environment (quotes in reference to 
literal interpretive tendencies). I 
suspect that, generally speaking, and in 
a sense, humans tend to be their own 
worst enemies, especially where they're 
stuck in their various literal 
interpretations. Not that one person's 
"stuck" might not be another person's 
whatever, obviously enough.

Speculatively,
Mauri



---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-56348C@list.vnet.net