theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Muck on Atlantis

Mar 18, 2006 06:26 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins


Dear Krsanna,

I haven't reached any conclusions, and my not even after reading Muck's book--if I find a copy. Basically I'm just trying to make sense of your summaries in light of contemporary science. A lot of new discoveries have taken place over the last fifty years which has changed the picture. I'm sure the material you are preparing will help clarify his position. I am not a scientist, though I have had a life time interest in the subject and am a fan of and subscriber to Scientific American and Science News. Between the two I try to keep current. Sometime extraordinary observations and intuitions are buried in out of date scientific works.
Best
Jerry


krsanna wrote:

Jerry -- The greatest contributor of the contemporary ozone hole is chlorofluorocarbons. Potential of ozone damage is not limited to chlorofluorocarbons.
It is a good idea to read Muck's book before reaching conclusions.

Best regards,
Krsanna

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> wrote:

Dear Krsanna,


Muck believed the meteors set off volcanic eruptions along the mountain range that extends down the mid-Atlantic. Volcanic
gases
were so nasty that they could have gotten caught up in prevailing winds and affected the upper atmosphere, thus the entire planet.

I'm not sure about what conditions might be required for meteors
to set
off volcanic eruptions along the mid-Atlantic ridge. Since there
is
volcanic activity of one sort or another taking place somewhere
along
the mid-Atlantic ridge almost all the time, I'm not sure if a
meteor
scenario is even necessary. The chief cause of ozone destruction
is
Chlorofluorocarbons (a combination of carbon, chlorine and
fluorine),
which is used in propellants in spray can, and also released from
freon
(which is still used in air conditioners in some areas). I've
never
heard of volcanoes being a source of Chlorofluorocarbons, and
think it
unlikely under any circumstances. But we have found correlations between major volcanic eruptions and global drops in temperature.
This
is caused by volcanic dust getting into the upper parts of the atmosphere and cutting down the amount of sun that reaches the
earth.
Muck suggested that mutations occurred in areas across what is now Europe and that the White European is a mutant.

Muck must have been drawing upon studies done in the 20s and 30s
on
mutations. Hermann Muller was one of the leading researchers in
this
field (His daughter was a friend of our family, but we lost touch
with
her a few years ago). Muller's research on fruit flies is still
classic
work that is still covered in most text books on the subject.
Basically
he showed the link between radiation and mutations--research that
was
conveniently ignored while we were developing the atomic bomb.
Volcanic
eruptions would create enough heat to create radiation, but I
don't see
how undersea eruption in the middle of the Atlantic would have a
genetic
altering effect.

The Rh positive blood factor is a mutation that appeared in
Europe
10,000-12,000 years ago. That information is from a geneticist
who
published on this in "The Alabama Journal of Medicine."


I've heard about this. But I question the link to volcanic
activity.

Ozone damage had not yet been discovered at the time that Muck's book was published. Scientists didn't even talk about the possibility of ozone damage until the 1970's. Muck's
consideration
of this was a good call.

It has been pretty recent that we have been able to photograph the
ozone
fluctuations with the use of satellites. So Muck did make a good
call.
Damage to the ozone layer that is now allowing higher levels of solar radiation is capable of causing genetic mutations, and may explain many of the mutations observed in the last 20 years.

The major concern has been cancer. An Australian friend was
telling me
that skin cancers were rising to epidemic portions among those
beach
goers in the South of the island continent.


Higher levels of cancer, particularly skin cancer among Whites,
and
brain disorders have corresponded with the increasing levels of radiation from ozone damage.

Yes. Indeed.


I'll try to get some scans made of the chapters we discussed and email them to you.


I'm looking forward to them.

Best
Jerry





krsanna wrote:


Muck believed the meteors set off volcanic eruptions along the mountain range that extends down the mid-Atlantic. Volcanic
gases
were so nasty that they could have gotten caught up in prevailing winds and affected the upper atmosphere, thus the entire planet. Damage done to the upper atmosphere could have allowed in greater solar radiation that affected many conditions of life, and particularly in Europe. Muck suggested that mutations occurred
in
areas across what is now Europe and that the White European is a mutant.
The Rh positive blood factor is a mutation that appeared in
Europe
10,000-12,000 years ago. That information is from a geneticist
who
published on this in "The Alabama Journal of Medicine."
Ozone damage had not yet been discovered at the time that Muck's book was published. Scientists didn't even talk about the possibility of ozone damage until the 1970's. Muck's
consideration
of this was a good call.
Damage to the ozone layer that is now allowing higher levels of solar radiation is capable of causing genetic mutations, and may explain many of the mutations observed in the last 20 years. I
have
a strange story from Bolivia of an elderly woman who is now developing internally the equivalent of gills. These are present during embryonic development, but disappear in later gestation.
I
cannot verify the story, but her story is so detailed in medical terminology that it was certainly not a casual invention.
Higher levels of cancer, particularly skin cancer among Whites,
and
brain disorders have corresponded with the increasing levels of radiation from ozone damage.
I'll try to get some scans made of the chapters we discussed and email them to you.

Best regards,
Krsanna


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@> wrote:



Dear Krsanna,

I can indeed imagine the Soviet having a field day with that

American.


Obviously the American scientist had a moment of confusion where

he


merged Biblical mythology into scientific methodology. I don't

whether


to laugh or be terrible embarrassed for the poor man. Should
like


he


should have been a minister instead.
I think a little background would put things into a better

perspective.


The Continental Drift hypothesis was actually the product of a

couple of


British scientists. The Idea quickly gained respect in GB, but

when the


two Brits came to the US in the 60s to present their theory and

its


supporting evidence, they were laughed out of the room. Since

your


Soviet book was published in 1970, this American's comment had
to


have


been made during the period when the theory was pretty much

ignored by


American scientists. It took about ten years (mid 70s) before
the


idea


began to take hold in the US. As it was taking hold, American Scientists changed the name to Plate Tectonics. My guess is
that


they


probably would have left the name alone if the theory originated

here.


Anyway, the theory did go through a lot of modifications since

1970.



This reminds me of a trip I took around '69 or '70 to Crater
Lake


in


Oregon. I stayed close to the rangers and absorbed every word

they said


about the geological history of the area. When I revisited the

area


around '84, I talked to one of the rangers and repeated back
what


the


previous ranger told me fifteen years earlier. The ranger

said, "oh no,


that is all wrong." I was momentarily shocked that I could have remembered it wrong. Then he explained that what the ranger
told


me was


the correct theory for then, but it has completely changed
since.
I googled Otto Muck. Interesting man. I'll have to see if I can

pick up


a used copy of his book. Or I may already have it in some

unopened box


somewhere.
He may have indeed intuited some things, and his data isn't
likely


to


change. However, any scientific views he might have brought in

are


going to be hopelessly outdated.
I'm not surprised about the existence of a meteor field along
the


coast


of So. Carolina, but I can't imagine how a meteor could sink a

continent


without destroying the planet. Massive explosions, earthquakes,

tidal


waves: yes. But anything powerful enough to sink a continent--


even a


small one, would also create a massive extermination of life on

the


planet. Perhaps, not everything, but it would be a major event.

The


global distribution of plant and animal life has been a subject
of


study


since the mid nineteenth century. Donnelly made extensive used
of


this


material in his classic work. I recognize the Bashfor-Snell

hypothesis

from some cable channel program on Atlantis. I wasn't too



impressed


either.

I think some of the best hints about Atlantis are in the SD.
But


HPB


discusses the subject from several different angles, and if one

doesn't


recognize that, or doesn't keep them straight, it all ends in a confused mess. As I understand it, Lemuria and Atlantis are
first


of


all references to the planet in general during the 3rd and 4th evolutionary periods (i.e. "root races."). Ruta and Daitya are references to the end of the Atlantian cycle which coincides
with


the


midpoint of the present cycle. Poseidonis is a reference to a relatively local disaster that wiped out a people who had a relationship to the Atlantian period. A last /Remnant, so to

speak.


Plato's Atlantis, more of a moral tale than history, appears to

include


a distant memory of Posidonis. However, the more current
argument


that


Thera was Plato's Atlantis has a ring of at least partial truth.
Best
Jerry






krsanna wrote:



Jerry -- On continental formation theories, Americans believe
(or
did) that the oceans have always existed. The Soviet author

quoted


an American scientist, who, speaking at a conference,
essentially
said, "The oceans are where God created them, right where
they've
been since the beginning." (My paraphrase.) You can imagine
the
Soviet had a field day with that American theory. The volcanic eruptions, according to the Soviet theory, was an intermediate event, but not the initial creational cause.

Otto Muck a German engineer whose hobby was Atlantology, and
his
family published the book after his death. The Soviet author

refers


to Muck's research, by the way.

Muck found much evidence for the existence and subsidence of Atlantis. At the moment, I can't recall if Muck talked about anomalies of marine vegetation and eels on America's east
coast.
But, anomalies in these are factual.
Muck believed that Atlantis' sinking was associated with meteor hits, and demonstrated evidence of what looks like a massive meteorite field along the coast of South Carolina. This was

fairly


compelling because he was using aerial photos. He believed that parts of America's east coast recently sank while other parts

rose


as a result of the meteor hits and Atlantis sinking.

THE ANDES

"Atlantis: The Andes Solution" (John Bashford-Snell) is another

book


that has great photographic evidence, but I believe the
author's
interpretation is way off base. He located a site in the Andes using satellite photographs -- he had worked in aerial

intelligence


in the Army. In the satellite photos concentric circles and

canals


cover an area approximately the size of Poseidon, as described
by
Plato. When the authohr visited the site, the canals looked
like
little valleys. In the satellite photos, however, the regular positioning and sizes of the concentric circles are apparent.
He
believed that the sinking of Atlantis had caused the Andes to

rise.


Assuming that a global culture anciently existed, as I believe
it
did, the similarity between one large center and another would

not


be surprising. The Andes as an ancient center for "The
Brothers"
would be a good candidate for a city of that nature. I believe Plato's description was pretty good for several reasons.

ANTARCTIC

Another location that can be plausibly interpreted as man-made construction because of regularity of concentric circles

separated


by canals is beneath the ice in the Antarctic. I can't
remember
precisely how it was identified, but it involved a study of the Antarctic.

It is feasible that a global culture could have used signature design in large centers during the early part of the fourth

round,


which an advanced culture lived among humans on earth. Zecharia Sitchin locates a scientific base at the Antarctic in his Earth Chronicles.

The Antarctic site is south of Easter Island, and that's
another
interesting feature. My TimeStar geometry identifies Easter

Island


by latitude and longitude.
Thar ya go.



-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@>
wrote:



Dear Krsanna,




I should mention that the Soviet writer believes that what is

now


the Atlantic Ocean was once a land mass, transfigured to
become



an



ocean.



Interesting idea. The problem is that the Atlantic ocean
floor



itself



(under the sediments) is made up of the volcanic matter that

came





from




the mid Atlantic ridge. Cores have been made on either side
of



the



ridge and oceanographers have found that the volcanic matter

gets





older



at they get further from the ridge. According to current
dating
methods, the volcanic matter nearest the Eastern and Western


shores of



the Atlantic date to about 180,000 years.



As I said, and what is so interesting, is that the Soviet theories seemed to embrace the idea of metamorphosis as an evolutionary process, rather the mechanical pulling and

shifting





of



the continental drift theory.



I think there is room for both. The absorption and recreation

of


continents through subduction and volcanism strikes me as a
kind



of



metamorphosis. Though, it seems that your Soviet writer had a


different



idea about it.



If I get a chance, I'll see if I can scan from the Soviet
book
chapters dealing with the core samples and inhabitants living

on





the



Canary Islands at the time of modern contact.



Yes, please. I am especially interested in those Canary island


inhabitants.




Have you read Otto Muck's book on Atlantis? His research on America's Atlantic coast was good.




No, I'm afraid I haven't. What is his conclusions on Atlantis?

Best,
Jerry





krsanna wrote:




Jerry -- The copy that I have is in English. Isn't that interesting. It was written in English but was never
published



in



America. So much for Cold War politics. The author used the


term



rock "DNA," by which I surmised he meant the mineral


composition. I



searched the internet and found a copy in Ireland. I believe


there



were copies in England as well.

I should mention that the Soviet writer believes that what is

now


the Atlantic Ocean was once a land mass, transfigured to
become



an



ocean. As I said, and what is so interesting, is that the

Soviet


theories seemed to embrace the idea of metamorphosis as an evolutionary process, rather the mechanical pulling and

shifting





of



the continental drift theory.
And yet, continental drift has become tectonic plate theory.


I've



been reading "A Crack In The Edge Of The Earth," by Simon Winchester, but, unfortunately got sidetracked. With what?

More


HPB. Winchester is a good popular science writer. I read
his



book



on Krakatoa. He frames geology with his human experience of
it.

Research that has found identical rock in Siberia and the

Western


U.S. in being done at The University of Montana. I have not

seen


anything definitive published on it, and have seen just


interviews



with the researcher, Dr. Sears.
If I get a chance, I'll see if I can scan from the Soviet
book
chapters dealing with the core samples and inhabitants living

on





the



Canary Islands at the time of modern contact.
Have you read Otto Muck's book on Atlantis? His research on America's Atlantic coast was good.

Best regards,
Krsanna

-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@>

wrote:






Dear Krsanna,

Thank you for this interesting post. I would appreciate any




references




you have to an English translation of the 1970 work, or


summaries








of




it. Of course they, and you, are right about something like
a





continent




leaving marks. Then again, the theory has changed
remarkably





since




Fritz's '64 address and since '70 also. The new data and




consequently




the ideas have changed so much that the oceanographers
changed



the








name




of the theory to "plate tectonics." They now understand
that


it







is not




the continents that move, but the plates which the
continents



sit








upon




glide over a very hot intermediary layer between the plates

and







the




core. They understand the mid-Atlantic ridge to be evidence

for







ocean




floor spreading and the "ring of fire" around the Pacific

basin





as



"subduction zones" where the continental plates return to
the





bowels of




the earth, only to be reformed again through volcanic

activity.







Other




evidence of plate movement is the island arcs most commonly


found








in the




Pacific. The Hawaiian island chain is the best known

example.







They now




understand that island arcs are formed by the motion of the




continental




plates over "hot spots." The overall theory seems to be

pretty







tight at




the moment. That is, the main observations are accounted for.

Still, the Soviet finding of a land mass with 12,000 year
old





fresh




water vegetation is a fascinating discovery, though,
depending





upon its




exact location, could be accounted for by the last major ice




age. The




world's ocean depth, because of ice age cycles, vary by some

350







feet.




They are near maximum right now. Also, the continents do

rise







and sink




to a certain extent by other actions: the weight of
glaciers,


a







strange




"bulge" that has its own motion, and, in a more localized


extent,



earthquake activity.

I'm interested in knowing what you mean by rock "DNA." But

the







canary




Islands and Iceland would have been part of a single land
mass





about 180




to 200 million years ago. There have been a lot of matches




already made




between the rocks on the Eastern coast of the Americans and

the







Western




coast of Europe and Africa.
Best
Jerry






krsanna wrote:






I hope it's okay to interject into this discussion

information






about




the mountain range that extends from Iceland in the north



southerly




through the mid-Atlantic. I've found some great Soviet


research







in




that identifies between Iceland and the Canary Islands a
land




mass




with fresh water vegetation carbon dated to about 10,000

BCE.






This




book was first printed in Moscow in 1970. Further, the

Soviets


found identical rock "DNA" in the sunken area as that found

in


Iceland.
The Soviet theory of continental formation was very
different




than




the American theory of continental drift. (Perhaps some of

the


Russian members can provide more information on this.) The



Soviet




theory involved a metamorphosis of elements and believed
that
something as large as a continent "drifting" would leave

marks





of



some kind. (It makes sense to me.) I'm not convinced that


drift



adequately explains the phenomena of continental drift.


Research







on




continental formation currently in process in the U.S. may


still



rewrite text books.

As a Soviet publication, the book was never published in
the




U.S. I




found it by searching on the internet: "Atlantis," by N.F.



Zhirov.




Soviet sciences were more open than America's, because they



didn't




have to seek approval of Christian voters. The result if

that


Americans conducted much research under cover of secret


projects,



such as experiments with psychics and psychic warfare. Uri



Geller




writes about some of his experiences with American research


into



psychism.
Best regards,
Krsanna


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins
<jjhe@>
wrote:






Dear Cass,

OK, now I understand what you are saying. Yes, I agree
that




there








are





things HPB wrote that have become verified. One of the
most
extraordinary passages in the SD is about a mid-Atlantic



mountain








range





that begins at Iceland, moves southwards, curves around

Africa






and








ends





at India. At the time, it was known that there was a mid-




Atlantic








rise





in elevation, but not that was a mountain range. Possibly



someone








could





have speculated that the rise could be mountain range. But


there







was no





evidence one way of the other. Sometime early in the
early




1900s








they





figured out that it was probably a mountain range, but
they



did







not know





how it ran. The fact that it runs the length of the

Atlantic






and








curves





around Africa was not discovered until 1957!
On the other hand, you might look at D.D. Kanga's "Where



Theosophy








and





Science Meet" (written in 1938). Kanga tried to interpret

the






SD




according to the then current science and ended up making
a



lot







of




misreadings. I also have a tape here of a talk that Fritz


Kunz







gave in





1964, when the "Continental Drift" notion was first
becoming




seriously





considered in this country. Fritz remarked that if


Continental







Drift





proves to be correct, "then we may as well throw out the


Secret



Doctrine." I can read the SD today and spot numerous


statements







which,





to my understanding, are supportive of Continental Drift.

But






during





Kanga's time when the idea was all but unknown no one,
that


I





am







aware,





understood those passages in that way.
This leads me to wonder all the more about the special

nature





of







the SD,





its writer and her teachers. It makes the book all the
more




exciting.






Best
Jerry









Cass Silva wrote:

What is important for me is the information and not where

or






who









the information came from. Much of it is now starting to
be
verified by the sciences. Those ideas that were once
thought



of







as




Mumbo Jumbo have and will continue to become fact.





Cass Silva wrote:







What is important for me is the information and not where

or






who









the information came from. Much of it is now starting to
be
verified by the sciences. Those ideas that were once
thought



of







as




Mumbo Jumbo have and will continue to become fact.





Cheers
Cass
Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@> wrote: Dear Cass,








Let us say, for argument's sake, that HPB, had reasons


unknown








to us, but obviously affirmed by the Masters, to preserve

their


identity and whereabouts as "persona non gratis",while at
the




same




time needing to acknowledge that the universal wisdom was



directed




and dictated by those same beings. What a task for anyone!











That appears to be just the case, in my opinion.








Has any scholar of theosophy discovered a "lie" within
the




works









given to the world, i.e. Isis and SD?










There is a lot of controversy about the accuracy and
source



of








HPB's





information. That is to be expected.







Isn't this the cogent point?







Why?








AS far as the bun fight over Tacoma etc, my humble and
non





scholastic attitude is that the Poparisation of the TS is



continuing




and will polarise the society out of credible existence, as

is






the




case in the rise and fall of the catholic church.











The way I like to express it is that the Theosophical




Organizations are





bound hand and foot by their own karma. I see the


polarization








as the





outcome of that karma.

Best,
Jerry




Cass Silva wrote:








Let us say, for argument's sake, that HPB, had reasons


unknown








to us, but obviously affirmed by the Masters, to preserve

their


identity and whereabouts as "persona non gratis", while
at



the



same time needing to acknowledge that the universal wisdom

was


directed and dictated by those same beings. What a task
for




anyone!









Has any scholar of theosophy discovered a "lie" within
the




works









given to the world, i.e. Isis and SD?





Isn't this the cogent point?
AS far as the bun fight over Tacoma etc, my humble and
non





scholastic attitude is that the Poparisation of the TS is



continuing




and will polarise the society out of credible existence, as

is






the




case in the rise and fall of the catholic church.






No matter, the horse has already bolted, and the rider

free





at








last from all the petty struggles brought about my men who

may


believe their crusade is based on moral integrity,
laughable.





Christianity has been arguing for 2000 years about its

claim






as









the one true religion, so those in what they consider

powerful


positions will be kept employed for many years to come,

kicking






up




the dust.






Cass

carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote: Jerry,

Thanks for you interesting posting.

You say:

"I expected in your reply below to either supply quotes


where








Paul did





indeed make such statements, and/or to comment upon my




discourse. Instead,





you come up with a quote where
Paul uses the word "charlatans" in connection to HPB and




Gurdjieff. Now,





liar and charlatan are two very different words with


different








meanings."






I say:

My point, Jerry, is that Paul Johnson says that HPB
lies


or






is









a charlatan.





The two words are applied to false persons. If you

believe







charlatans do





not lie, well, my friend! It sounds like that difference




between "innocent"





and "not guilty". (By the way, Brazilian tribunals use
the





word "innocent"





instead of "not guilty").

The issue is that Paul says, implies and suggests that
HPB



was








not truthful





or reliable. We may all use the words we prefer for
that.




There









are plenty





of them. The meaning is the same, though.

Besides, my point is NOT that Paul openly and firmly

states






HPB









is a fraud.





He follows Algeo's line. He suggests this is "a

possibility







among others".






This kind of action is one of the most efficient forms
of





active slander.





This is a form of slander in which the slander tries to


avoid








being caught





as such. This has been used in Adyar TS since the
false





accusations





against Judge in the 1890s.

When asked to clarify his position with regard to HPB's



honesty









(which





should be no big deal!), Paul, the Historian, refuses
to



to








so, and gets





away from the debate, using the mask of a person with




offended





sensitivities.

Is this emotionalistic show a "scholarly attitude"?
Not


at






all.





It is well-known, Jerry, that authentic scholars and




researchers do NOT





get away when their thesis are confronted.

Just the opposite. They take every opportunity to
clarify




their









facts, to





defend and to IMPROVE their viewpoints.

Only historians who are benefitting from authoritarian



political









structures





will get nervous and bitter and reject clarifying their



views.









Now, Adyar





TS structure, as you may know, is not too open-minded...

So this is the kind of "Historian" some Adyar leaders
(not



Ms.








Radha





Burnier) need, in order to avoid facing the
consequences



of








Leadbeater's





biography written by Gregory Tillett -- and other


publications








which show





20th century pseudo-theosophy as it is.

Radha Burnier runs an authoritarian structure, to my

view --













yes.






But she clearly disapproves the gossiping/libeling
policy




about









HPB, and





she will never -- as long as I know -- defend CW


Leadbeater's








clairvoyance





and fancies. I hope you understand I am looking at the




context, in order





to understand the specific facts.

I am sorry if I did not discuss every point in your

message







below. I hope I





addressed the main issues, though. Let me know if I
did



not.




Thank you very much for your openess of mind.


Best regards, Carlos.















From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World To Carlos Cardoso Aveline--some


thoughts








and a reply






Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:01:10 -0800

Dear Carlos,

I changed your subject heading out of respect for Paul,

who






has









stated






on several occasions that he does not like his name


displayed








in subject






headings. It is just a matter of respecting the


preferences







of





others. I replaced the heading with your name, which,

of







course, you






are free and welcome to change.

Because of my busy schedule, I have become more
selective





concerning






which postings I read and which I reply to. I try to

reply






to









those






posts which I feel that I can make a constructive



contribution









to the






writer and/or interested readers. To properly do this,
I




have









to take






the time to read (sometimes several times) the post,


consider








what they






are saying (and implying), and then formulate an answer


which







I









hope






will move the topic along. This takes time. But I

believe






that









these






kind of posts raises the overall quality of a
discussion




board









and is






helpful to others. On the other hand, to argue for the


sake







of









argument






is, for me, a waste of energy and time. It is my hope

that





my




correspondents take the same time and consideration to


reply







to









my






messages to them. Now, regarding our discussion.

My last response to you was concerning your statement

that






Paul









wrote






that HPB "lied." Here again is the statement you made,


which







I









replied:













When Paul Johnson writes that she lied, or implies
that



she








lied, that












she was a Spy, etc. (which she denied vehemently and




unendingly) he is





saying that her philosophy is the philosophy of a liar,

the







philosophy of a













fraudulent woman.








I replied that I did not recall Paul writing that HPB


lied.







I









then went






into a carefully considered discourse about HPB's style

of







communication






and how it is so often misunderstood. I expected in
your




reply









below to






either supply quotes where Paul did indeed make such




statements, and/or






to comment upon my discourse. Instead, you come up with
a




quote









where






Paul uses the word "charlatans" in connection to HPB
and





Gurdjieff.






Now, liar and charlatan are two very different words
with





different






meanings. My Webster's Dictionary defines the word in




part: "one who






prates much in his own favor, and makes unwarranted




pretensions..."






This definition seems to fit well the quote you gave me



below.









It does






not necessarily imply lying, but only self-promotion.
At



any








rate, this






is an entirely different discussion. If this is your


method







of





discussion, that is, shifting the terms of the
discussion




with









new






arguments instead of responding to my discourse, then I


must








reply by






saying that I frankly cannot afford the time, nor do I

have





an




inclination to play this kind of game. With this said,
I




will









assume






that you misunderstood and will more carefully re-read
my




last.









In the






mean time, I will respond to your statements below:

I re-read the 1987 Theosophical History Pamphlet and

noted






the









quotes






given below. Your sentence fragment "had fraudulent



aspects"









Appears






once on page three. In context, the quote reads:

"The Sufi doctrine of instrumental teaching
demonstrates


a







possible






explanation of the apparently 'outrageous'

and 'fraudulent"







aspects of






H.P.B. and Gurdjieff." He then goes on to explain what

the






Sufi









doctrine






of instrumental teaching is. Note that Paul had




put "outrageous" and






"fraudulent" in quotes. That means that he is quoting



someone









elses'






use of the terms. Also, the qualifier "apparently"


indicates








that






whoever he is quoting, is not saying that aspects of


H.P.B.'s








and






Gurdjieff's methods appear to be fraudulent. Also,
the



main








sense of






the paragraph, if you read it in its entirety, is to


explain







the





doctrine of instrumental teaching, which Paul is

suggesting







that H.P.B.






and Gurdjieff may have employed. If they did, then
that




would









mean that






what appears to be outrageous and fraudulent is not so


after








all.






The quote you cite on page seven is part of Paul's


concluding




paragraphs. Here, he is naming several possible


conclusions








one can






make about H.P.B. and Gurdjieff. To paraphrase the
ideas:



1)








that Both






may have been Charlatans with Gurdjieff exploiting what

HPB



accomplished. 2) That H.P.B. was genuine and Gurdjieff

not.






3)









That






Gurdjieff was sent to correct mistakes H.P.B. made 4)

Both







H.P.B. and






Gurdjieff were genuine. Paul does not, in his
conclusion




offer









an






opinion as to which, if any of those possibilities are



correct.












2) Besides, I friendly challenge you to extract from


Johnson








any clear






declaration that he does NOT consider HPB a fraud, and


that







he









considers











her









as a sincere, honest, decent woman, author and
teacher.


He







uses the same






"maybe" tactics as Algeo and others, in the way he


slanders








HPB. All his






books use that strategy. As he wants to sell his
books,


he







will most











likely









NOT contradict himself in that. (In his "approach",
Paul





ignores the 1986






declaration of the SPR, etc.)









Carlos, you have to keep in mind that this article was




submitted as a






scholarly paper. What you want Paul to write is an



Hagiography









or an






Apologia. Those kinds of discourse are not suitable
for





scholarly






writing. I can say that I have known Paul since 1984

and






know









for a






fact that he does indeed admire HPB.










3) Of course, Esoteric Philosophy cannot be understood

at






the









level of











outer









appearances ("face value"). True. Esoteric
Philosophy




deals









with the






occult, or essential aspects of life, which

are "invisible






to









the eyes"











(to









use St. Exupery's expression). Yet they are invisible

NOT







because they











are









false, as illustrated-ignorants like Paul Johnson and

John







Algeo will











say.


I think that we all are ignorant at different levels.

Yet






for









one






person to call another ignorant, reeks of arrogance to
my




nose.












See the 'Doctrine
of the Eye' versus the 'Doctrine of the Heart'
in "The




Voice









of the






Silence".









I have been studying HPB's writings for 43 years and


teaching








them for






almost thirty years. I think I understand to eye and

heart







doctrines






well enough.










g a4) As to HPB bein fraud or semi-fraud, it is enough

to






see









her astral






chart. She was a Leo in the sun sign. Is Leo a sign
for




fraud









or lies?











No.


Benito Mussolini was born July 29, 18883. That makes
him


a






Leo









too.






What do you think of him?










directly opposite to the sometimes
unstable, anxious and astute Scorpio (while Scorpio as
a




sign









also has











very









good qualities, of course).









Actually, Leo is opposite Aquarius.










HPB was Cancer in her ascendant -- a
personality strongly emotional, sincere, loving,
direct,





sensitive, open,






compassionate, sometimes too vulnerable -- and
uncapable



of








deceiving.












Yasser Arafat had cancer rising. He didn't seem to be


overly








sensitive






about the people he killed to get to the position he
was


in.










Her Moon was in Libra -- her emotions were transparent,
rational, inclined to justice and reciprocity, also




vulnerable, and far












from allowing her to have any cold outer mask.

Truman Capote had moon in Libra. He wrote "In Cold

Blood."










Those who attack her personal,
Lion/Cancer/Libra honesty and openess, are attacking
the





essential











ethical









basis of her philosophy.









Mere planetary placements alone are not going to tell
you




much









about a






person. I suggest that you leave astrology to the



astrologers.












5) I cannot agree that the book "Incidents in the Life

of







Madame











Blavatsky",









by A. P. Sinnett, is a "confused mess". In fact, it is
a




major









source of






first-hand evidence on HPB's life.











Actually, second hand evidence. It is a biography.










It is the cause of many of HPB's letters
now available. Because of this, Vera, HPB's sister,

wrote







important











texts









about the life of the founder of the theosophical

movement.









Boris de Zirkoff deserves credit for pulling together

most





of








the






letters we have. He also corrected the many mistakes
in



the








Biography.






See the chronologies in the Blavatsky Collected Works,


which







he









spent 50






years compiling.










6) As to the absence of data about HPB's life, there
are



two








points I











want









to make.









I don't wish to get into a discussion about your
notions


of






the





esotericism of St. Germain, Carlos Castaneda etc.

Rather,






HPB









simply






stated that her private life before she became a public



person









is none






of the public's business. Most public people fell that


way,








whether






they are an occultist, actor, or astronaut.










7) Up to a few days ago, I thought Johnson to be

honestly






self-










deluded.











I









have to apologize for that. I have learned better.
Paul




makes









brutal











though









disguised attacks to HPB and the Masters, but, when




confronted with the






facts, he tries to cover himself with the false mantle

and







role of a











poor,









delicate and innocent victim.









I hope that the misreadings I have pointed out to you

will






help









you to






put aside your former conclusions, carefully re-read

Paul's







writings and






re-evaluate them.

Best wishes,
Jerry


carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:










Dear Jerry,

Thanks for your views.

1) I will quote from Paul Johnson's pamplhlet "Madame




Blavatsky, the











'veiled









years' " (THC, London, 1987, p. 07):

"There are two obvious questions(...) The first
concerns



the








relative






genuiness of Gurdjieff and Blavatsky as emissaries of


occult








orders.











Both









may have been charlatans, with Gurdjieff merely

exploiting






the









market






created by H.P.B. (...)."

Is that clear?

In page 03 of the same pamphlet, Johnson
explains "why"



HPB








was a fraud,











or









"had fraudulent aspects" in her behaviour and work.
HPB


is






but









a mirror











for









him as for many people.


2) Besides, I friendly challenge you to extract from


Johnson








any clear






declaration that he does NOT consider HPB a fraud, and


that







he









considers











her









as a sincere, honest, decent woman, author and
teacher.


He







uses the same






"maybe" tactics as Algeo and others, in the way he


slanders








HPB. All his






books use that strategy. As he wants to sell his
books,


he







will most











likely









NOT contradict himself in that. (In his "approach",
Paul





ignores the 1986






declaration of the SPR, etc.)

3) Of course, Esoteric Philosophy cannot be understood

at






the









level of











outer









appearances ("face value"). True. Esoteric
Philosophy




deals









with the






occult, or essential aspects of life, which

are "invisible






to









the eyes"











(to









use St. Exupery's expression). Yet they are invisible

NOT







because they











are









false, as illustrated-ignorants like Paul Johnson and

John







Algeo will











say.









Essential aspects of life can be seen only by the

heart.






See









the











'Doctrine









of the Eye' versus the 'Doctrine of the Heart'
in "The




Voice









of the






Silence".

g a4) As to HPB bein fraud or semi-fraud, it is enough

to






see









her astral






chart. She was a Leo in the sun sign. Is Leo a sign
for




fraud









or lies?











No.









It is the most brave and loyal sign, directly
opposite


to






the









sometimes






unstable, anxious and astute Scorpio (while Scorpio as
a




sign









also has











very









good qualities, of course). HPB was Cancer in her




ascendant -- a






personality strongly emotional, sincere, loving,
direct,





sensitive, open,






compassionate, sometimes too vulnerable -- and
uncapable



of








deceiving.











No









frauds, then. Her Moon was in Libra -- her emotions
were





transparent,






rational, inclined to justice and reciprocity, also




vulnerable, and far












from allowing her to have any cold outer mask. And --


she







spent most of





her









life fighting cold outer personality masks, which she




called "shells'.











She









had reasons to do so. All of her philosophy is the




philosophy of











universal









truth and personal sincerity. Those who attack her


personal,




Lion/Cancer/Libra honesty and openess, are attacking
the





essential











ethical









basis of her philosophy.


5) I cannot agree that the book "Incidents in the Life

of







Madame











Blavatsky",









by A. P. Sinnett, is a "confused mess". In fact, it is
a




major









source of






first-hand evidence on HPB's life. It is the cause of

many






of









HPB's











letters









now available. Because of this, Vera, HPB's sister,

wrote







important











texts









about the life of the founder of the theosophical

movement.



6) As to the absence of data about HPB's life, there
are



two








points I











want









to make.

First, the life of every regular disciple will have



mysterious









aspects.











They









have to protect all their inner lives from "outward




magnetism". See






Alessandro Cagliostro, Count of St. Germain and
others,





equally











mysterious,









and equally called "charlatans" by the Paul-Johnsons

and





V.








Solovyofs of






their times. The libellers of Initiates enjoy selling


books








with their






fancied "revelations".

Second, HPB, as Carlos Castaneda and other learners,


trained








herself for






some time in self-forgetfulness, which
includes "erasing



the








signs of











every









step taken in the world". This is something
which people who do not understand a iota of esoteric




philosophy cannot











ever









understand.


7) Up to a few days ago, I thought Johnson to be

honestly






self-










deluded.











I









have to apologize for that. I have learned better.
Paul




makes









brutal











though









disguised attacks to HPB and the Masters, but, when




confronted with the






facts, he tries to cover himself with the false mantle

and







role of a











poor,









delicate and innocent victim.






=== message truncated ===


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a

breeze.


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




Yahoo! Groups Links















Yahoo! Groups Links













Yahoo! Groups Links















Yahoo! Groups Links
















Yahoo! Groups Links
















Yahoo! Groups Links















[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application