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 17, 2006 06:33 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins


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














[Back to Top]


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