Theos-Talk Archives (June 1995 Message tl00026)

> Our astronomers tell us that the Hubbel space telescope has
> identified objects in space that have ages inconsistant with
> previous theory.  Further, they tell us they are observing stars
> that are colliding with other stars.  The speculation is that
> there will have to be an entirely "new" model of cosmogenesis
> created to explain these observations.
>
> I am currently exploring the Stanzas of Dzyan, and I am struck by
> the ability of this "old" model of cosmogenesis to explain all
> the "new" observations.  In fact, I believe that the current
> observations, as I understand them, could be predicted from the
> Stanzas.
>
> I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the apparent
> breakdown in our "modern" theory of cosmogenesis.  Light and Love
>
> Fred


Dear Fred,

Hi.  I recently ran across a statement in THE SECRET DOCTRINE
which remarkably was a "new" mode of thinking for me.  The
statement is found on p.  615 Vol I: "Space is the real world,
while our world is an artificial one."

This may not seem very important, but at the time it struck me in
a way that I don't think I'll ever forget it.  It made me think
that this could be the "knowledge" that Guru Maharaji gives to
his chelas.  It's fairly simple.  Reality is space.  You can
meditate on it.

Last night I watched a movie called THE PAPER.  The photography
during the introduction to the film takes us inside the gears of
a clock and finally outside to the face where the minute ticks to
set off the alarm.  I was thinking how beautiful our solar system
is.  If you try to think of all of the planets, maybe even as if
they are a clock of some kind, we're caught within a familiar
object to us.  I don't know if I'm familiar enough with a clock
to call it home, but....

Then, where we are - our planet Earth, I mean - is probably a
point in space where we'll never return.  Well, sure Earth
returns to its seasons once a year, but the sun is moving and
taking us to new space within the universe.

There's quite a lot to ponder in this "new" mode of thinking.

I found some neat measurements in Vol I, SD:

Planet    Density    Equatorial Velocity        Oblateness or Polar
                                                Compression
Sun        1.47            2.0                      .0005
Mercury    5.44            .003                     .0012

Earth      5.52            .47                      .003367
Jupiter    1.31            12.6                     .06
Saturn                     10.2                      0.1

Also density of Venus is supposed to be less than Earth's, and
Uranus' density is more than Saturn's.

This is from the editor's note (1978 edition) Number 48, relating
to page 593.

Fred, I'm sorry I don't have a better answer, but thanks for
raising that question anyway.