Theos-Talk Archives (March 1997 Message tl00071)

>In any case, I have found that many common interpretations of
>the early Theosohpical writings are in direct conflict with
>scientific knowledge (as opposed to philosophy of science,
>"mechanistic beliefs" being philosophy and not science). A good
>example was that members of the 4th root race were 45 feet tall,
>humanoid in form, and our physical anscestors. I will not go
>into all the reasons why it would take a major scientific
>revolution (for example, having the laws of physics change
>radically over a period of a few hundred thousand years without
>our being able to notice it in geological evidence), but it
>leaves three major possibilities:
>
>1) Our scientific knowledge is wrong.
>2) Blavatsky was wrong.
>3) Our interpretation of Blavatsky is wrong.


On the other hand, Blavatsky writes that the human race did not
become physical until the end of the third root race.  Since each
root race is supposed to begin at the midpoint of the former one,
that means that physicalization did not begin until the midpoint
of the fourth.  Therefore the early 45 foot tall fourth root race
types were not physical, but etherial.  Since Blavatsky's
etherial beings don't leave fossil records, this is not a
teaching that can be scientifically substantiated or disproved at
this time.

I believe it was John van Mater, former librarian at the Pasadena
TS, who had a collection of newspaper and journal articles about
findings of skeletons of giants from time to time.  There is
never any follow up on these things--not even an exposure as a
hoax.  It seems that our scientific method tends to ignore
discoveries that do not relate to the current theories.
always thought that if I had unlimited time and wealth, it would
be a lot of fun to track down these discoveries and find out what
is really behind them.

It has been a while since I've taken an anthropology class, but
last I've heard, Richard Leaky hold the record for the oldest
human remains, which date close to four million years.  As I
recall, these remains were of a young man who stood over six feet
tall.  I recall at the time some astonishment among some
anthropologists who expected that the older human remains should
show our ancestors to be smaller.

>Certainly, since Blavatsky does not claim infallibility (nor do
>the Mahatmas, as their letters went through students who might
>not have gotten the words right, even if what the Mahatmas
>intended to say was correct), #2 is a tempting possibility. The
>postmodernists, of course, will hang on #1. But, not wishing to
>unnecessarily multiply entities, I would soonest look at #3. I
>have yet to find in the Primary Literature (and would love it if
>someone could point it out to me) anything which definitely says
>that the 4th root race were the PHYSICAL anscestors of the 5th
>root race, nor anything saying that it was humanoid in form. It
>certainly can be inferred from what was written, but it is not
>stated outright. This leads one to think that, while monads
>theoretically cannot be reincarnated into lower species, they
>CAN be reincarnated into HIGHER species.

Blavatsky does definitely say that the fifth root race is four to
five million years old.  So it is the only one that we know
anything about from the fossil records.  She also gives the date
of some 18 million years ago that the human race took physical
form (thus dating the midpoint of the 4RR).  I think that one can
then infer that fossil remains of the later fourth root race do
exist (not the etherial 45 foot giants of the early period), and
we probably have already collected them.  But what would they
look like?  Certainly not human, but probably humanoid.  During
my anthropology days, I wondered if the ramapithicus might not
have been the fossil remains of an early physicalized fourth root
race branching.  This is all speculation of course, but the dates
fit the current theories.


------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------