Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00236)

Hello,

Coincidentally, our last SD seminar covered that section and in this 
case, it was my turn to cover this part of it. First, I need to make 
the general comment that the SD has to be read with a great amount of 
care, because it is very easy to miss the context in which she is 
framing things, and she is drawing from a nineteenth century scientific 
vocabulary, when the current one would have suited her purposes 
better--if only it existed then. As usual, HPB has piled a bunch of 
images together in order to make a lot of related, but separate points. 
There is always a danger of getting them jumbled together. 

Basically, in this chapter (at least part of it), HPB is writing about 
several kinds of earth changes that have occurred in its long history, 
and she goes back several billion years. Among those changes are the 
changes in sea level, plate tectonics, and subduction--the last two are 
notions that were hardly guessed at in her time. If you have read up on 
the basics of plate tectonics, have a good map which shows the sea floor 
typography, and carefully follow her descriptions, I think you will be 
quite stunned at the accuracy of her descriptions in light of what we 
understand today. Regarding Easter Island, she writes about land masses 
which are swallowed up into the earth (subduction) and regurgitated into 
new land masses through volcanic activity etc. Easter Island is a case 
in point. That it is the remnant of a past continent that was swallowed 
and re-gurgitated. Yes, the Easter Island states are relatively modern, 
and so are the giant "Buddha" statues in Afghanistan, which she also 
writes about in this section. Her point is not that the statues were 
made by ethereal giants, but that they belie humanity's collected memory 
of giants. 

I hope this helps.
--j




Konstantin Zaitzev wrote:

>
>Hello.
>
>In theos-talk M. Sufilight wrote:
>
> 
>
>>Where did Blavatsky go wrong on the Easter Island issue?
>> 
>>
>
>
>In The Secret Doctrine, vol. 2, HPB wrote:
>
>"Easter Isle, for instance, belongs to the earliest civilisation
>of the Third Race. Submerged with the rest, a volcanic and sudden
>uplifting of the Ocean floor, raised the small relic of the Archaic
>ages untouched, with its volcano and statues, during the Champlain
>epoch of northern polar submersion, as a standing witness to the
>existence of Lemuria."
>
>She also connects the size of the statues with the giants lived in
>previous races.
>
>It contradicts not with modern scientific theories but with
>evidences of local people who not long ago were still alive.
>
>1. Local inhabitants say that the statues were made by their
>progenitors. The primitive stone axes (of normal size) are found
>near the unfinished statues in abundance, and local people know how
>to handle with them. Moreover, they have preserved rites and songs
>connected with fabrication of these statues. They agreed to make a
>new statue to prove that they are saying truth, and they have done
>most part of the work, though the new statue was left unfinished.
>
>2. Archaeologists have found in deeper layers other sculptures
>(of lesser size) which are obviously more ancient and match those
>which are found in the South America. Manner of the stone laying is
>the same with the South American, too. On the belly of some statues
>one can distinguish pictures of the ships what suggests that their
>authors really came by sea from some other continent.
>
>3. Another important evidence is from European seamen. When they
>first discovered the Easter Island, the statues stood upright. When
>they visited this island afterwards, the statues were laid down.
>Aboriginals explained that there was war between them, and one
>party, which won, tried to destroy all the symbols of the other
>party, with which the statues were associated. So, how these
>statues could survive several great cataclysms, when whole
>continents were destroyed (first Lemuria and then Atlantis), and
>retain their upright position (they weren't fastened but simply
>stood), while the bunch of wild people could easily lay them down?
>
>The argument that the existence of such statues proves the
>existence of the giant people is also ridiculous. All over the
>territory of Russia one can find the big statues of Lenin. Does is
>mean that inhabitants of Russia were all giants and wore a kepi?
>
>4. There are paved roads in the island which lead into the sea.
>Previously it seemed that it's a proof that the island is a part
>of submerged continent. But when the sea bottom was explored no
>continuation of roads, neither other buildings were found. The
>roads were obviously used to deliver the goods to and from ships.
>
>
>These are direct arguments but there are several additional ones,
>which are indirect. One of them is the following.
>
>5. When we study old stone buildings we see that they were built
>where they were needed, not necesserily where is the big supply
>of stones. The Pyramides and Stonehenge are the good examples.
>Ancient people knew how to deliver big stones for hundreds of
>kilometers, and didn't build pyramides and things like that in
>rocky areas only. In those areas they rather carved the temples
>in rock.
>
>The Easter Island is rather small, and there were two main types
>of stones which were used for statues. Noteworthy that both types
>are found in the island, just in several kilometers from platforms
>with the statues. They bear the traces of mining. If it was a great
>continent, it's rather improbable that all this was concentrated in
>one place, and just that place only survived.
>
>
>Most of above data is derived from "Aku-Aku" and other books by
>Thor Heyerdahl. We cannot regard him a retrograde who was clinging
>to old theories, he rather challenged the theories of the official
>science. Most of his conclusions are rather in favour of the
>theosophical view of history than against it, so he served a good
>service to theosophy. I have read his books when I was a schoolboy
>and they in some extent have prepared me for theosophy.
>
>I explain Blavatsky's error as a result of reliance to the
>scientific data of her time. She have found this information
>somewhere and decided that it fits well to her general theory.
>Probably she got from the Masters the general outline only but
>had to fill many gaps herself using any material at hand.
>
>
>With the best wishes, Konstantin
>http://www.theosophy.ru
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>



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