Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt01022)

Yes, Bart, I know all that you wrote but my attempt was not to be deep a lot, just suggested some mere terms without major researches.
I am aware that Gregor Mendel was also an Austrian monk!
Twenty years ago I studied that he did a number of experiments on inheritance in pea plants. He did not know about genes and chromosomes and what he called "factors" we now call genes. 
This man did not know about cell division so he had not seen diagrams or slides of mitosis and meiosis.
HPB didnīt know about these points either but her attempts to use the term "races' as much as Sinnet did and all the correlation between the imaterial and the material races were really great.
Perhaps Erica should leave as it is and putting somewhere in the page an explanation of the term "Race" in the contest of the SD.


Bart: " But, if you look at the descriptions of the previous "root races", they 
violate observation of physical phenomena if they were our genetic 
ancestors. But, when one realizes that a genetic link is not necessary 
for reincarnation, one can fit them in very well with known observed 
physical phenomena, with much better explanations than, "Satan planted 
false evidence"." - Bart

Of course, when men became material and truly septenary the Mendel discoveries here are evident that were applied since we know that as times went by,great modifications were ocurring remaining still a mistery how or when the genetics turned into such as we know of Genetic Laws at present times, where the particular number of chromossomes avoids crossings between different living beings/species.
The lack of a better term for race makes it still hard to find, because there is not yet an european term for ancient or occult/sanscrit term for thatstate of existence as HPB stated too.
There were no genetics laws as we know, but other unknown laws, I agree, appliable for the first human races as we know today, since the 2nd race was not physical with no Kamarupa, which evolved only in the 3rd race.
The thing is, if the fist races as you say, cannot be called our " genetic ancestors" , there were other laws than genetic that ruled the evolution ofthe living beings.
Call it genetic or maybe protogenetic laws, they were also laws, with the difference that mankind cannot be aware of or even guess about .
IMO you gave too much importance to my humble attempts to help Erica... anyway thanks for the reply.

Regards
Krishtar


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bart Lidofsky 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Races ?



krishtar wrote:
> Nothing, it is just a brainstorming session.. If you have heve
> participated in one you should be aware that criticism is not allowed
> in it.

I have both participated in, and run many brainstorming sessions. 
Saying that somebody is WRONG is not allowed. Asking someone to explain 
their idea is not, nor is pointing out difficulties that need to be 
overcome in order for an idea to work is not. You used the term 
"genetic" in your terms, in an attempt to remove incorrect connotations 
from the previous evolutionary stages of humanity. That carries, not 
just a connotation, but a statement that the previous stages were our 
genetic ancestors. Yet, while I have seen things that can be interpreted 
as this, I have not seen this stated flat out. Of course, since Gregor 
Mendel's work was not published until the 20th century, the term 
"genetic" wasn't even known by Blavatsky or the Mahatmas, although the 
concept certainly might have been.

But, if you look at the descriptions of the previous "root races", they 
violate observation of physical phenomena if they were our genetic 
ancestors. But, when one realizes that a genetic link is not necessary 
for reincarnation, one can fit them in very well with known observed 
physical phenomena, with much better explanations than, "Satan planted 
false evidence".

Bart



   
Yahoo! Groups Links



   





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]