Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00558)

Paul K:

Hi.

>Some words regarding your reply and K. Paul's on Atlantis. I have been
>involved in my job in the task of reconstructing the history of the North
>Atlantic since the late Cretaceous. One rather powerful tool is the new
>gravity map of the world released by the Dept. of Defense. "Discover"
>magazine had a feature on it last March (?). The map gives you a picture of
>the Earth's oceans with a resolution better than 20 km. You can trace
>continental spreading since the late Cretaceous on that map - the fracture
>zones are all mapped in great detail.

It sounds familiar. I may have photocopied the article when it came out.

>Regarding the general sinking and uplifting of continents. Continental crust
>just doesn't founder and sink -- it is very buoyant, which is why it is not
>genrally found in depths of more than 2 km of water. ...
>it's hard to believe the scenario of continents rising from under the water
>and falling - a concept popular in 19th century geology. Yes -- the level of
>the ocean does change -- cyclically, we know that. But that's a global effect.

There are different ways that we can interpret the statements about
Atlantis. One is that the "rising" and "sinking" were attempts to express
what happened in terms of what would be understood and accepted at the
time, and if the same idea were expressed now, it would be expressed
in terms of continental drift. (That is, there was land mass where the
Atlantic Ocean is now, at a time period of perhaps a few million years ago.)

A second description would be in psychological terms. With this key,
we have the rising and submergence of a *continent of thought*, e.g.
whole astral or archetypal patterns of thinking and expression. This
would correspond to major evolutionary advances of humanity, rater
than to radical changes in land mass. Perhaps there were mass migrations
at this time. 

A third form of submergence would be by ice, as in various ice ages,
causing cultural and evolutionary adaptations by people.

>The fact that the Mahatma letters echo so much of 19th century science
>argues against them having been written by Masters -- who ought to know
>better.

Or it may indicate that they were written primarily for the benefit of
A.P. Sinnett, and not as a tretise on science for the western world.
Certain materials may have been given a slant because of how Sinnett
asked his questions, and not always with the intent of plainly and 
openly telling everything that he wanted to know.

>If a writer of these letters is castigating Sinnett and contemporary
>scientists for THEIR poor understanding of science, then if he is a Master,
>you'd think he ought to know. If on the otherhand, what he writes turns out
>to be  bullshit, then chances are he isn't a Master. 

That's one possibility. But there are many other possible explanations.
The letters, if written and transmitted through chelas, could have a
certain bias by them, and get some "noise" added along with the bona fide
information. Certain materials may be intentionally veiled behind an
exoteric blind, with no intent on giving out scientific (or occult) knowledge.

My inclination when reading a book like "The Mahatma Letters" is to
ignore or downplay the scientific tidbits, considering them as curiosities
but not as the latest word on science. What is said would be in response
to the science of the last century, and often, perhaps, added for purposes
of analogy and metaphor. The intent may have been to get people thinking
in a certain way scientifically, rather than to tell them *what to think*,
to point out a direction, rather than paint in the details of what will
be found along the way.

-- Eldon