Planets, Re: Occult atoms
Feb 09, 2007 11:16 PM
Thanks for supplying the passage you feel to be fraudulent.
While the theory put forward may not be correct in view of modern
science, in my understanding it would not constitute as being fraud.
I am sure that there are other examples in HPB's writings of ideas
that may be untenable according to modern scientific theories and
Once something is proven wrong we absolutely need to recognize it and
look at other theories that maybe more compelling.
Our object should be seeking truth rather than blindly taking
everything written by HPB or any other writer as being the last word
on the subject.
This is all part of the process.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Konstantin Zaitzev"
> --- In email@example.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@> wrote:
> > Can you enlighten me Konstantin?
> Transactions Of The Blavatsky Lodge
> April 25 th, 1889
> Why should rotation cease on a dead
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" Because the life of
> a body as a whole is nothing but
> motion, a reflection of that one life
> which is called in the Secret
> Doctrine absolute motion. When a
> man dies his body as a whole
> ceases to move, although the
> individual activity of its cells, and
> ultimately of
> its molecules,
> increases enormously.
> This is
> proved by the rapid and violent
> changes that take place in a
> decomposing corpse. In the same
> way when a planet dies, its rotatory
> motion about its own axis ceases,
> though its activity in its constituent
> particles is increased rather than
> Now, if I am asked if the moon
> it is in relation to the
> moon that this is asked
> if I am
> asked why the moon moves in an
> orbit round the earth, I reply that
> this is caused by the vampirising
> action of the moon upon the earth,
> not as science teaches owing to an
> attraction exerted by the earth upon
> the moon, but rather the reverse;
> the moon is so saturated with the
> magneto, vital emanation of the
> earth that she is carried along by it
> like an over-full sponge in a current
> of water. It is not the water that
> attracts the sponge in this case, but
> the sponge is carried along by the
> stream in its own movement. Does
> this explain satisfactorily, or did
> you want to know something very
> Mr. Kingsland: No, I only wanted to
> know why the mass of the moon
> should cease to rotate as a mass of
> matter when the principles had left
> it, what was the relation between
> the principles having left it and the
> mass of the matter of the moon
> ceasing to move?
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" It did not cease to
> move; it moves.
> Mr. Kingsland: â€" But, as a whole, on its
> own axis.
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" Because it cannot
> move, because the spirit has fled,
> because the principles are gone, so
> how can it move?
> Mr. B. Keightley: â€" When a man is
> dead, when his principles have left
> him, the body as a whole does not
> Mr. Kingsland: That is to say, that a man
> is walking consciously.
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€"
> It is not
> consciously that they move. They
> donâ€™t know what they are about.
> Take an idiot, a complete idiot, he
> will be moving and running and
> grinning and jumping, but he will
> not know what he is about.
> Mr. Kingsland: â€" Then it is purely
> internal force.
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" It is simply vital
> Mr. B. Keightley: â€" The scientific idea
> of the thing is that it is a purely
> mechanical movement, because the
> large mass of matter having once
> been set spinning, there is no
> friction and nothing to stop it.
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" Donâ€™t speak to me
> about science, because science and
> I are on cool terms.
> Mr. Kingsland: â€" The astronomical idea
> is that there is friction.
> Mr. B. Keightley: â€" Well, it is so slow
> that no calculation has found any
> trace of it.
> Mr. Kingsland: â€" They have found
> traces of it.
> Mr. B. Keightley: â€" It is supposed to
> take 300,000,000 of years to make
> the difference of half-an-hour.
> Mr. Mead: â€" Are you right in saying the
> moon does not move at all?
> Doesnâ€™t it revolve once?
> Mr. B. Keightley: â€" Not on its own axis;
> I donâ€™t think there is any rotation of
> the moon about its own axis.
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" It revolves because
> it vampirises and is carried away.
> Mr. B. Keightley: â€" Swept along so to
> speak in the current.
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" It vampirieses not
> by conscious action, but there is a
> kind of dead matter, which by its
> own inherent attribute or quality
> Mr. B. Keightley: â€" You cannot say a
> sponge absorbs water consciously,
> but it absorbs.
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" Yes, it is carried up
> by the current.
> Mr. Mead: â€" In another way that is
> rather analogous, because it does
> rotate for some time, for instance,
> near the rocks.
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" There are no rocks
> in space.
> Mr. Kingsland: â€" That gives us rather a
> different idea, as to the planetary
> motion, the planets revolving by
> means of their own inherent force.
> If anything revolves in that way it
> must have something to revolve
> against, so to speak.
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" One is a satellite,
> and the other an independent entity.
> Mr. Kingsland: â€" I mean to say it must
> be able to pull itself round by
> something unless it is set going at
> the beginning, and goes on until it
> gradually stops by means of
> friction or some force acting upon
> it from outside. A man cannot lift
> himself by his own waistbelt, and
> you can hardly conceive of a planet
> revolving, and continuing to
> revolve by means of its own axis.
> Mr. B. Keightley: â€" Has it ever occurred
> to you that the Laya center is really,
> if you come to follow it out, the
> idea of rotatory motion, the center
> of vortex.
> Mdme. Blavatsky: â€" It is.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application