How are the two concepts of race related?

 

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:11 pm
Subject: How are the two concepts of race related? was: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Loose Threads

Dear friends,

I found this interesting in the current dialogue between Daniel Hindes and Peter Staudenmaier:

D. Hindes:

Have you found the Polarian, Hyperborian, Lemurian and Atlantean biological races?

P. Staudenmaier:

The Polarians and Hyperboreans didn't have material form in the sense of biological races. The Lemurians did. Both Steiner and Blavatsky taught that there are still remnants of Lemurians and Atlanteans populating the earth today.

PS is quite right in saying that "Polarians and Hyperboreans didn't have material form in the sense of biological races". Also that the Lemurians did. Also that "there are still remnants of Lemurians and Atlanteans populating the earth today": we can read in Steiner how the origin of the classical five races goes back to such times.

We have consensus thus far! Biological races have a lot to do with what happened, in particular, in the Atlantean root-race, to use the theosophical terminology. Or what happened in the Atlantean main-race, to use another theosophical terminology.

Now all we still need to get clear about is the fact that there are, according to Steiner, five biological main races on the one hand, and seven evolutionary main races on the other hand (two of which are indeed in the future). Using the word "main race" or "root race" is a Theosophical terminology for denoting periods of evolution, i.e. periods of time.

Steiner repeatedly said that to use the word in the latter sense is not helpful, because it has little to do with what we usually mean by race. So he stopped using the Theosophical terminology. The concepts remain, but the concepts were never racial to begin with! Read all the Blavatsky I sent you and show me where she means classical races when she talks about root- or main-races, and which classical race she means. Where does Blavatsky say anything about the black, the yellow, the red, the white or the brown race? She may have made some remarks in passing. I'd be interested in them nonetheless, if anyone wants to search for them. But she is talking almost exclusively of large cycles of time that supersede one another. That, if anything, is the core doctrine of Theosophy! If you miss that, you've missed everything.

Since everything on earth happens within time, also the development of the classical races had to occur somewhere along the line, i.e. within a certain "root-race" or "root-races". But none of the classical races ARE root races! In spite of the fact that Steiner talked about main races with regards to the biological races (there are 5, see the colours enumerated above, and they are related to certain planetary influences and geographical centers) and that Steiner (elsewhere) talked about main races with regards to the superseding time periods when speaking in the Theosophical jargon. They are "main" each within their specific context.

That these concepts are distinct concepts is about as clear as anything can be if you allow yourself to think for just a second or two. Anyone who tries to think otherwise must not think for long, because that won't work! And I repeat my question: Where does Blavatsky say anything about the black, the yellow, the red, the white or the brown race? How does her concept of race relate to the traditional concept?

Best regards, Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: How are the two concepts of race related?

Detlef writes:

Using the word "main race" or "root race" is a Theosophical terminology for denoting periods of evolution, i.e. periods of time.

<snip>

The concepts remain, but the concepts were never racial to begin with! Read all the Blavatsky I sent you and show me where she means classical races when she talks about root- or main-races, and which classical race she means. Where does Blavatsky say anything about the black, the yellow, the red, the white or the brown race?

<snip>

That these concepts are distinct concepts is about as clear as anything can be if you allow yourself to think for just a second or two. Anyone who tries to think otherwise must not think for long, because that won't work! And I repeat my question: Where does Blavatsky say anything about the black, the yellow, the red, the white or the brown race? How does her concept of race relate to the traditional concept?

Much of Detlef's depiction is erroneous. In volume I of the 1893 London edition of The Secret Doctrine, Blavatsky sometimes refers to the root-races as "our Five Races", of which "two more have still to appear" (261), and at several points she writes simply of "five Root Races" without bothering to add any mention of the other two (e.g. 150). Blavatsky discusses the yellow, black, brown, and red races at length in volume II of The Secret Doctrine; see, for example, pp. 366-367.

The notion that her racial terminoogy refers to time periods instead of races is false, as volume II makes clear. She says that each "Root-Race" consists of "sub-races and innumerable family divisions and tribes" (462), and she provides a "genealogical tree of the Fifth Root-Race" (453). "The Human Races are born one from the other, grow, develop, become old and die. Their sub-races and nations follow the same rule." (463) She makes much of the "great difference between the intellectual capacities of races" (332).

Blavatsky describes how a minority of Atlanteans evolved into Aryans and produced "the Northern stocks", while the "yellow and red, brown and black" are merely "the remnants of the Atlanteans", produced when the "undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition." (786) According to her account, peoples with "more Aryan blood" conquered those with less (789). She refers repeatedly to "the five hitherto developed Races" (e.g. 207). "There are, however, considerable numbers of the mixed Lemuro-Atlantean peoples produced by various crossings with such semi-human stocks -- e.g., the wild men of Borneo, the Veddhas of Ceylon, classified by Prof. Flower among Aryans (!), most of the remaining Australians, Bushmen, Negritos, Andaman islanders, etc." (206; all parentheses in original, throughout this post.)

In keeping with her remarkably inconsistent racial terminology and numbering, Blavatsky also writes about the "three distinct primeval Races," namely "the red-yellow, the black, and the brown-white" (260). "Esoteric Teaching names three great divisions, namely, the red-yellow, the black, and the brown-white." (210) At the same time, she makes clear that root races are biological categories: "The Malays and Papuans are a mixed stock, resulting from the intermarriages of the low Atlantean sub-races with the seventh sub-race of the Third Root-Race. Like the Hottentots, they are of indirect Lemuro-Atlantean descent. It is a most suggestive fact -- to those concrete thinkers who demand a physical proof of Karma -- that the lowest races of men are now rapidly dying out..." (824)

She then explains that as we approach the future emergence of the sixth root race, there will only be three racial groupings left: "the white (Aryan, Fifth Root-Race), the yellow, and the African negro -- with their crossings (Atlanto-European divisions). Redskins, Eskimos, Papuans, Australians, Polynesians, etc. -- all are dying out. Those who realize that every Root-Race runs through a gamut of seven sub-races with seven branchlets, etc, will understand the 'why'. The tide-wave of incarnating Egos has rolled past them to harvest experience in more developed and less senile stocks; and their extinction is hence a Karmic necessity." (825)

Blavatsky explains that "The present yellow races are the descendants, however, of the early branches of the Fourth Race," whereas the "degenerated Australians" are descended from "the seventh sub-race of the Third." (209) In contrast, "the 'cream' of the Fourth Race gravitated more and more toward the apex of physical and intellectual evolution," eventually yielding "the nascent Fifth (the Aryan) Race" (209). "Sub-races, guided by Karmic Law or destiny, repeat unconsciously the first steps of their respective mother-races. As the comparatively fair Brahmans -- when invading India with its dark-coloured Dravidians -- have come from the North, so the Aryan Fifth race must claim its origin from northern regions." (812)

Her general approach is nicely summed up in the following disquisition on "the Australian savages": "The survivors of those later Lemurians, who escaped the destruction of their fellows when the main Continent was submerged, became the ancestors of a portion of the present native tribes. Being a very low sub-race, begotten originally of animals, of monsters, whose very fossils are now resting miles under the sea floors, their stock has since existed in an environment strongly subjected to the law of retardation. Australia is one of the oldest lands now above the waters, and in the senile decrepitude of old age, its 'virgin soil' notwithstanding. It can produce no new forms, unless helped by new and fresh races, and articifical cultivation and breeding." (207)

Peter Staudenmaier

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:30 am
Subject: Re: How are the two concepts of race related?

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Those who realize that every Root-Race runs through a gamut of seven sub-races with seven branchlets, etc, will understand the 'why'. The tide-wave of incarnating Egos has rolled past them to harvest experience in more developed and less senile stocks; and their extinction is hence a Karmic necessity." (825)

<snip>

"Sub-races, guided by Karmic Law or destiny, repeat unconsciously the first steps of their respective mother-races. As the comparatively fair Brahmans -- when invading India with its dark-coloured Dravidians -- have come from the North, so the Aryan Fifth race must claim its origin from northern regions." (812)

Bradford blinks;

So the problem is what? Peter you think the soil of heredity is more important than the use each spirit makes of it. That the fact is we flower when we flower. MLK Jr. did a type of flowering of the Intellect, and managed to contribute back to culture, wonderfully clearly, something that was stolen from the African Americans. Indeed, if I was silly enough to imagine it, the Martin Luther of the ancient Church and the social forces of the Martin Luther King Jr. that we know, are both interesting forms of flowering and each caused a startling revolution of sorts.

Now Flowering of the Spirit is a well known term. It doesn't mean remaining submerged in the instincts, it doesn't mean that everyone flowers out of the soil that they were given or that they decided to incorporate in. What we need to show you, is how so many great souls flower in the various 7 to 9 fold structure, that outlines where the I AM is located in the psychological structure. But observation remains secondary as to the racial soil that the Spirit Grows from, even when the gift is returned in Mandela and King and Gandhi. Their gifts were for all mankind and had a distinct message of brotherhood.

Firstly, the I AM is not located at the change of teeth. The capacities of the I AM have not yet ripened, at all. Next the I AM is not at puberty, here again the I AM has not ripened yet. Now there is a delicate area where Columbine and suicide configure, this is around 18 1/2 to 20, where, something that really is not part of your understanding or maturity yet happens, at 18 1/2 to 20 odd, the first meeting comes with all the potential capacities that the I AM is bringing with it into incarnation. It's hopes, dreams and potential hindrances.

Now the flowering of the I AM reveals where in the I AM psychological conditions from 21 - 28 as sentient soul, or intellectual soul or consciousness soul, all the way to 42 reveal where the mature I AM is working with all or most of its faculties.

Now this, I AM strata, defined by Steiner, is not a static system. Why? Because Intellectual Soul activity or Sentient Soul activity reveals behavior and behavior itself can remain stuck in one of these capacities, or working in one of these areas, well over an extended number of years. Steiner used to say that some people never grow up beyond the soul state of 28 years of age. In other words, sentient soul moody dysfunction and a minimal interest in the intellect of the times as well as simple love of sports, t.v. and raising a family, does not indicate someone is going out beyond development to capacities higher than the sentient soul. So it is not static by age, but by observation of the soul development, the thinking development and the spirit maturity.

So that is one of the chief areas of problem, you have not schooled your observation but only the dry aspects of your intellect. That all observations are not Politically Correct or even, or equal, and in case you haven't heard, Humans are not equal. This general theory that we are all created equal, applies to a five pointed star and a biological construct, but not spiritual development and individual karmic flowering. This is exactly why the I AM discernment is different than racial observations.

However, setting the standard of culture, race and cosmic development meant that somebody had to take something serious. Research on the phases of Earth Development, Human incarnation time periods and Planetary contributions to specific capacities, all have to do with developing a clear picture of how the I AM is ripening in time and evolution.

Steiner took the Christ Event as a serious shift in the direction of humanity. The statement of John the Baptist about this Change that was needed, was indicative of the cosmic shift that Steiner observed. The fact that a certain Race, say the ability to track, trace, follow, as the Native American ability as hunter had in the realm of nature, to that which the Germanic Thinking capacity had, in the realm of pure Thought, and tracking, tracing and following the I AM, was very specific. It didn't mean that everyone would flower or become a super example of such higher development in either the Native Americans or Germanic Thinking capacities. But one set of focused tracking abilities could also flow into another. Native Americans could find the higher I AM tracking capacity of the Germanic soul, something they could be attracted to.

Now it is fairly clear to most of us in the Michael School that we can measure where someone has risen to the level of profound Consciousness Soul understanding, Intellectual Soul understanding and Sentient Soul understanding. Each of these are very different, but they all entail the study of how the I AM is developing, not how the race is developing. How the I AM is developing.

So in the realm of the Consciousness Soul, Joseph Campbell, Shakespeare, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, Desmond Tutu and Mandela, and countless other examples arise.

Where Chief Seatlle left off, he knew the wisdom of the Sentient Soul and nature with all the generosity of heart, that brought him to the brotherhood of all things. This is a real high level of Sentient Soul and certainly as a soul he would have no trouble with any of the other phases. These capacities sit in different races but their I AM's flower at their own rate and in their own time, much depends on circumstances surrounding each individual and family. We don't blame an individuals flowering on their race, we give credit to the individual for their own specific growth and development. That does not mean that Afro-Americans do not supply a wonderful surge of refreshing childhood forces, fresh etheric forces to depleted souls who might need just that after ripping their brains out with false dialectical materialism.

So this is where the most retarded, glaring errors in thinking have mixed you up and lost you in the strange structure of Theosophy and Anthroposophy. That is why it takes study, not hot gun opinions. That is why it takes humanity. To build the understanding that there were even etheric regions of the Earth that delivered certain forces, is like looking at the top or bottom of an orange and see how vortex forces exist. The same vortex forces exist in Tomato, or plum. The Earth has had central etheric vortexes and to get to these regions of research, Steiner had to cover the details of geographic distribution of qualities.

Now we could extend all this into the races coming up locked in the mineral kingdom.. the 7 metals of lead, silver, copper, gold, iron, zinc, mercury. The Trees and what they might be in the future according to their seven fold development might also develop prime tree spirit and unknown, deep root races.

Thinking is so impressively shocking as to how humanity has attempted to think into the revelation of What happened from Noah and the earlier recapitualations of Ancient Ssturn, Sun and Moon evolutions and the history of our elder Angelic brothers, in real terms, all the way to now.... that I don't blame you for taking the cowards way out. It really does take study. You get most of these things wrong but your ego can't admit it. As the Tree Ents would say, "musn't be too hasty".

Of course one of the most impressive Flowerings ever recorded, at least two flowerings, are Buddha, flowering out beyond anything we ever imagined. A classification of Buddha that is truly something that has higher educational Academia of the Spirit and certainly is less linked to the race than the Individual of Buddha. Let me pin point exactly for your Politically correct failure to grasp the shool of humanity, the actual graduation, the matriculation that awaits all humanity, is one phase called Buddhahood. These are real Academic degrees, the rest of our university training is just making excuses for not facing how humanity graduates with honors and how it fails and calls down cosmic catastrophe on it's own head.

The Italians got St.Frances and his flowering is nearly as monumental as Buddha's except that St. Frances wasn't a world wide teacher, he became a living revelation of that Flowering beyond the normal Itaalian. What happened in the specific case of St. Frances revealed a highly accelerated process, and in a sense, more selfish, more introverted and linked directly to Buddha's future mission.

We could list hundreds of women and men, all of them reaching a crescendo of development in certain phases of the I AM. Noam Chomsky is very distinct in that he is a far wiser and more developed Intellectual Soul Being than you are at present. That is very clear because Chomsky has a very refined and sharply distinct intellect and an enormous seed of fair, humanitarian interest. This intense humanitarian interest will bring she/he to the highest phase of the Consciousness Soul.

Examples are everywhere one just has to grow up. In other words one has to grasp what I implied here.

Saturn=Saturday
Sun=Sunday
Moon=Monday

[now these entail the Saturn-Sun-Moon Evolutionary periods.]

Mars=Tuesday
Mercury=Wednesday

[Those complete the descending Mars forces of the I AM and the upward turning, Healing and Mercury forces - ALL OF WHICH STAND FOR CURRENT EARTH EVOLUTION]

Jupiter=Thursday
Friday=Venus

Everyone flowers and awakens in whatever place and time and at whatever phase of sentient soul, intellectual soul and consciousness soul. These various Rainbow forces act as the base, the flower pot and soil out of which the soul grows higher capacities.

However people flower, ripen and arise in various phases of their experience on Earth. The various conditions act merely as the pot and soil out of which the I AM flowers.

Bradford

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:07 am
Subject: Re: How are the two concepts of race related?

holderlin66 wrote:

The Italians got St.Frances and his flowering is nearly as monumental as Buddha's except that St. Frances wasn't a world wide teacher, he became a living revelation of that Flowering beyond the normal Itaalian. What happened in the specific case of St. Frances revealed a highly accelerated process, and in a sense, more selfish, more introverted and linked directly to Buddha's future mission.

Bradford swings to Tarjei and Andrea;

The immaturity of the observations aimed against Steiner gain clarity when you look at the Italian Renaissance. The warmth and sentient visual forces, the sentient ability to hold images, to adore the body, the soul, the spirits and all that the warmth of heart delivers to the painting of color and vision of seeing, what stirs the soul, either Mono Lisa or the sculpted David, needed the Italian Soul condition to bring that warmth into vision. This was an extension of the Greek vision, sort of the inner forces that moved the Greek in Phidias and Athens.

So I agree with Tarjei, my most beautifully observed eyes were Giraffe's and next to that were women of India. But I saw the depth of compassion that is in something of the Raphael Madonna. There is a profound warmth and nature motherliness that fed into the fact that my observations were partly based on my search for the deepest feelings I had about my own mother who died when I was three.

This led me to the deeper experiences of what women showed me. But I was given a karmic wrinkle, both to lead me beyond the midwest mind set and set me on my own quest against anything that was in my step parents paradigms.

When we take the Italian forces and take the Native American ability to read nature and track, animal, human and read subtle conditions, we also suddenly see in bold highlights that the I AM conditions in the Germanic Thinking gave Steiner the opportunity to do what Steiner himself said his chief growth mission was. Tracking I AM's, tracing in the Karma Lectures the tracks of the human spirit. This Steiner reserved last, but as I have pointed out, this was a distinctly new capacity that is coming towards humanity. Not based on the Race and biological memory in the blood, but the actual experience of the New I AM in the blood.

Diana, Dan, Peter, Walden...well a whole lot of people are not even out of their knickers yet. When I tell you that Steiner demands that we advance our thinking ever deeper and that the depth that Anthros are able to look at things is stunning, this is well over the top of true and they are well over the brim of deluded.

Take for instance El Greco and the Spanish Soul experience.

http://www.spanisharts.com/prado/greco.htm

Here we see a difference in how the blood and language of spain also flow into art. Our problem, not our problem, but the problem Diana, Dan etc.. etc.. is that they have failed in an education that didn't allow them to see deeply into things and compare the different styles of language, eyes, culture, painting.. and therefore they attempt to level things with a Politcally Correct Brush and fail to see humanity and fail to understand reality and this is supremely sad because the lack the requisite depth to see clearly.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:49 am
Subject: Re: How are the two concepts of race related?

Hello everybody,

I find the most recent mail by Peter Staudenmaier quite helpful. He has read Blavatsky more recently than I had and was able to answer my question: "Where does Blavatsky say anything about the black, the yellow, the red, the white or the brown race? How does her concept of race relate to the traditional concept?"

He writes, among other quotes: "Blavatsky describes how a minority of Atlanteans evolved into Aryans and produced "the Northern stocks", while the "yellow and red, brown and black" are merely "the remnants of the Atlanteans", produced when the "undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition." "

Here is the passage form Blavatsky in the original ( THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol. 2, Page 743f - PS has an edition with different page numbers!):

"You do not know which was the best and most handsome generation of men which has ever lived on this earth," said the priests of Sais to Solon, according to Plato. "Only a weak seed of it, of which you (Greeks) are the descendants, is all that remains." "Their books," they added, "preserved the records of a great nation, which emerging from the Atlantic sea had invaded Europe and Asia (Timaeus). The Greeks were but the dwarfed and weak remnant of that once glorious nation. . . ." What was this nation? The secret doctrine teaches that it was the latest, seventh sub-race of the Atlanteans, already swallowed up in one of the early sub-races of the Aryan stock, one that had been gradually spreading over the continent and islands of Europe, as soon as they had begun to emerge from the seas. Descending from the high plateaux of Asia, where the two Races had sought refuge in the days of the agony of Atlantis, it had been slowly settling and colonizing the freshly emerged lands. The emigrant sub-race had rapidly increased and multiplied on that virgin soil; had divided into many families, which in their turn divided into nations. Egypt and Greece, the Phoenicians, and the Northern stocks, had thus proceeded from that one sub-race. Thousands of years later, other races -- the remnants of the Atlanteans -- "yellow and red, brown and black," began to invade the new continent. There were wars in which the new comers were defeated; and they fled, some to Africa, others to remote countries. Some of these lands became in course of time -- owing to new geological convulsions -- islands. Being thus forcibly separated from the continents, the result was that the undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition. Did not the Spaniards in the Cibola expeditions meet with WHITE savage chiefs; and has not the presence of African negro types in Europe in the pre-historic ages been now ascertained?

"Egypt and Greece, the Phoenicians, and the Northern stocks" proceed from "the latest, seventh sub-race of the Atlanteans, already swallowed up in one of the early sub-races of the Aryan stock". "Thousands of years later, other races -- the remnants of the Atlanteans -- "yellow and red, brown and black," began to invade the new continent." These fled to remote countries which became islands. "Being thus forcibly separated from the continents, the result was that the undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition." The latter seem to also include "WHITE savage chiefs", if I read Blavatsky correctly.

It is all a bit convoluted. But it does show show that Blavatsky's root races do have a biological component. I suppose this is why she called them "races" to begin with. And she calls them "root races" because they are the roots to other offspring races.

This does, of course, not negate the fact that her 7 principal root races were each assigned to consecutive time periods. The Theosophist Sinett takes this up and intellectually systematises the idea into a mechanical clockwork. With Blavatsky, it is still somewhat chaotic.

I think we are probably in agreement thus far.

I had written some more paragraphs, going on to Steiner. I will wait, however, before I post them, because I still would like to get clear about one thing with Blavatsky. That is the following:

We have seen that Blavatsky writes of the "yellow and red, brown and black" races. (An aside: does anyone know why she puts these in quotation marks?) We have also seen that she speaks of root races. She speaks of the latter as "remnants of the Atlanteans", which is the fourth root race according to Blavatsky. We seem to all agree that, for Blavatsky, "main race" and "root race" mean the same. The question remaining is: were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "main races" for Blavatsky?

I will proceed with my train of thought when this question is answered.

Best regards, Detlef Hardorp

...................................................................................................................................

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: How are the two concepts of race related?

Strange. Noone has reacted to my posting, although it's been posted for more than 24 hours - unusual for this list. Would anyone care to answer my question? It was (see below): were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "main races" for Blavatsky?

I'd appreciate a response from someone who might know! Thanks! Detlef Hardorp

___________________________________________________________

Here is the post I am referring to again for easy reference (#3400):

Hello everybody,

I find the most recent mail by Peter Staudenmaier quite helpful. He has read Blavatsky more recently than I had and was able to answer my question: "Where does Blavatsky say anything about the black, the yellow, the red, the white or the brown race? How does her concept of race relate to the traditional concept?"

He writes, among other quotes: "Blavatsky describes how a minority of Atlanteans evolved into Aryans and produced "the Northern stocks", while the "yellow and red, brown and black" are merely "the remnants of the Atlanteans", produced when the "undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition." "

Here is the passage form Blavatsky in the original ( THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol. 2, Page 743f - PS has an edition with different page numbers!):

"You do not know which was the best and most handsome generation of men which has ever lived on this earth," said the priests of Sais to Solon, according to Plato. "Only a weak seed of it, of which you (Greeks) are the descendants, is all that remains." "Their books," they added, "preserved the records of a great nation, which emerging from the Atlantic sea had invaded Europe and Asia (Timaeus). The Greeks were but the dwarfed and weak remnant of that once glorious nation. . . ." What was this nation? The secret doctrine teaches that it was the latest, seventh sub-race of the Atlanteans, already swallowed up in one of the early sub-races of the Aryan stock, one that had been gradually spreading over the continent and islands of Europe, as soon as they had begun to emerge from the seas. Descending from the high plateaux of Asia, where the two Races had sought refuge in the days of the agony of Atlantis, it had been slowly settling and colonizing the freshly emerged lands. The emigrant sub-race had rapidly increased and multiplied on that virgin soil; had divided into many families, which in their turn divided into nations. Egypt and Greece, the Phoenicians, and the Northern stocks, had thus proceeded from that one sub-race. Thousands of years later, other races -- the remnants of the Atlanteans -- "yellow and red, brown and black," began to invade the new continent. There were wars in which the new comers were defeated; and they fled, some to Africa, others to remote countries. Some of these lands became in course of time -- owing to new geological convulsions -- islands. Being thus forcibly separated from the continents, the result was that the undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition. Did not the Spaniards in the Cibola expeditions meet with WHITE savage chiefs; and has not the presence of African negro types in Europe in the pre-historic ages been now ascertained?

"Egypt and Greece, the Phoenicians, and the Northern stocks" proceed from "the latest, seventh sub-race of the Atlanteans, already swallowed up in one of the early sub-races of the Aryan stock". "Thousands of years later, other races -- the remnants of the Atlanteans -- "yellow and red, brown and black," began to invade the new continent." These fled to remote countries which became islands. "Being thus forcibly separated from the continents, the result was that the undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition." The latter seem to also include "WHITE savage chiefs", if I read Blavatsky correctly.

It is all a bit convoluted. But it does show show that Blavatsky's root races do have a biological component. I suppose this is why she called them "races" to begin with. And she calls them "root races" because they are the roots to other offspring races.

This does, of course, not negate the fact that her 7 principal root races were each assigned to consecutive time periods. The Theosophist Sinett takes this up and intellectually systematises the idea into a mechanical clockwork. With Blavatsky, it is still somewhat chaotic.

I think we are probably in agreement thus far.

I had written some more paragraphs, going on to Steiner. I will wait, however, before I post them, because I still would like to get clear about one thing with Blavatsky. That is the following:

We have seen that Blavatsky writes of the "yellow and red, brown and black" races. (An aside: does anyone know why she puts these in quotation marks?) We have also seen that she speaks of root races. She speaks of the latter as "remnants of the Atlanteans", which is the fourth root race according to Blavatsky. We seem to all agree that, for Blavatsky, "main race" and "root race" mean the same. The question remaining is: were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "main races" for Blavatsky?

I will proceed with my train of thought when this question is answered.

Best regards, Detlef Hardorp

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: How are the two concepts of race related?

So far I am with you. (I don't know why Blavatsky put the race colors in quotes).

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: Detlef Hardorp
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 4:52 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: How are the two concepts of race related?

Strange. Noone has reacted to my posting, although it's been posted for more than 24 hours - unusual for this list. Would anyone care to answer my question? It was (see below): were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "main races" for Blavatsky?

<snip>

We have seen that Blavatsky writes of the "yellow and red, brown and black" races. (An aside: does anyone know why she puts these in quotation marks?) We have also seen that she speaks of root races. She speaks of the latter as "remnants of the Atlanteans", which is the fourth root race according to Blavatsky. We seem to all agree that, for Blavatsky, "main race" and "root race" mean the same. The question remaining is: were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "main races" for Blavatsky?

I will proceed with my train of thought when this question is answered.

Best regards, Detlef Hardorp

...................................................................................................................................

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:21 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: How are the two concepts of race related?

Hey Peter!

Bradford and I quite often think the same thoughts. It's just that he's about 20 or so years older that I and is more experienced at articulating these thoughts and expressing them into words.

I'm wondering why you didn't bother to reply to his post?

And even more so I'm wondering why you have ignored his posts entirly since you came to this list?

I'm re-posting this because I would like you to try and respond to it.

Thanks

Mike

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Those who realize that every Root-Race runs through a gamut of seven sub-races with seven branchlets, etc, will understand the 'why'. The tide-wave of incarnating Egos has rolled past them to harvest experience in more developed and less senile stocks; and their extinction is hence a Karmic necessity." (825)

<snip>

"Sub-races, guided by Karmic Law or destiny, repeat unconsciously the first steps of their respective mother-races. As the comparatively fair Brahmans -- when invading India with its dark-coloured Dravidians -- have come from the North, so the Aryan Fifth race must claim its origin from northern regions." (812)

Bradford blinks;

So the problem is what? Peter you think the soil of heredity is more important than the use each spirit makes of it. That the fact is we flower when we flower. MLK Jr. did a type of flowering of the Intellect, and managed to contribute back to culture, wonderfully clearly, something that was stolen from the African Americans. Indeed, if I was silly enough to imagine it, the Martin Luther of the ancient Church and the social forces of the Martin Luther King Jr. that we know, are both interesting forms of flowering and each caused a startling revolution of sorts.

Now Flowering of the Spirit is a well known term. It doesn't mean remaining submerged in the instincts, it doesn't mean that everyone flowers out of the soil that they were given or that they decided to incorporate in. What we need to show you, is how so many great souls flower in the various 7 to 9 fold structure, that outlines where the I AM is located in the psychological structure. But observation remains secondary as to the racial soil that the Spirit Grows from, even when the gift is returned in Mandela and King and Gandhi. Their gifts were for all mankind and had a distinct message of brotherhood.

Firstly, the I AM is not located at the change of teeth. The capacities of the I AM have not yet ripened, at all. Next the I AM is not at puberty, here again the I AM has not ripened yet. Now there is a delicate area where Columbine and suicide configure, this is around 18 1/2 to 20, where, something that really is not part of your understanding or maturity yet happens, at 18 1/2 to 20 odd, the first meeting comes with all the potential capacities that the I AM is bringing with it into incarnation. It's hopes, dreams and potential hindrances.

Now the flowering of the I AM reveals where in the I AM psychological conditions from 21 - 28 as sentient soul, or intellectual soul or consciousness soul, all the way to 42 reveal where the mature I AM is working with all or most of its faculties.

Now this, I AM strata, defined by Steiner, is not a static system. Why? Because Intellectual Soul activity or Sentient Soul activity reveals behavior and behavior itself can remain stuck in one of these capacities, or working in one of these areas, well over an extended number of years. Steiner used to say that some people never grow up beyond the soul state of 28 years of age. In other words, sentient soul moody dysfunction and a minimal interest in the intellect of the times as well as simple love of sports, t.v. and raising a family, does not indicate someone is going out beyond development to capacities higher than the sentient soul. So it is not static by age, but by observation of the soul development, the thinking development and the spirit maturity.

So that is one of the chief areas of problem, you have not schooled your observation but only the dry aspects of your intellect. That all observations are not Politically Correct or even, or equal, and in case you haven't heard, Humans are not equal. This general theory that we are all created equal, applies to a five pointed star and a biological construct, but not spiritual development and individual karmic flowering. This is exactly why the I AM discernment is different than racial observations.

However, setting the standard of culture, race and cosmic development meant that somebody had to take something serious. Research on the phases of Earth Development, Human incarnation time periods and Planetary contributions to specific capacities, all have to do with developing a clear picture of how the I AM is ripening in time and evolution.

Steiner took the Christ Event as a serious shift in the direction of humanity. The statement of John the Baptist about this Change that was needed, was indicative of the cosmic shift that Steiner observed. The fact that a certain Race, say the ability to track, trace, follow, as the Native American ability as hunter had in the realm of nature, to that which the Germanic Thinking capacity had, in the realm of pure Thought, and tracking, tracing and following the I AM, was very specific. It didn't mean that everyone would flower or become a super example of such higher development in either the Native Americans or Germanic Thinking capacities. But one set of focused tracking abilities could also flow into another. Native Americans could find the higher I AM tracking capacity of the Germanic soul, something they could be attracted to.

Now it is fairly clear to most of us in the Michael School that we can measure where someone has risen to the level of profound Consciousness Soul understanding, Intellectual Soul understanding and Sentient Soul understanding. Each of these are very different, but they all entail the study of how the I AM is developing, not how the race is developing. How the I AM is developing.

So in the realm of the Consciousness Soul, Joseph Campbell, Shakespeare, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, Desmond Tutu and Mandela, and countless other examples arise.

Where Chief Seatlle left off, he knew the wisdom of the Sentient Soul and nature with all the generosity of heart, that brought him to the brotherhood of all things. This is a real high level of Sentient Soul and certainly as a soul he would have no trouble with any of the other phases. These capacities sit in different races but their I AM's flower at their own rate and in their own time, much depends on circumstances surrounding each individual and family. We don't blame an individuals flowering on their race, we give credit to the individual for their own specific growth and development. That does not mean that Afro-Americans do not supply a wonderful surge of refreshing childhood forces, fresh etheric forces to depleted souls who might need just that after ripping their brains out with false dialectical materialism.

So this is where the most retarded, glaring errors in thinking have mixed you up and lost you in the strange structure of Theosophy and Anthroposophy. That is why it takes study, not hot gun opinions. That is why it takes humanity. To build the understanding that there were even etheric regions of the Earth that delivered certain forces, is like looking at the top or bottom of an orange and see how vortex forces exist. The same vortex forces exist in Tomato, or plum. The Earth has had central etheric vortexes and to get to these regions of research, Steiner had to cover the details of geographic distribution of qualities.

Now we could extend all this into the races coming up locked in the mineral kingdom.. the 7 metals of lead, silver, copper, gold, iron, zinc, mercury. The Trees and what they might be in the future according to their seven fold development might also develop prime tree spirit and unknown, deep root races.

Thinking is so impressively shocking as to how humanity has attempted to think into the revelation of What happened from Noah and the earlier recapitualations of Ancient Ssturn, Sun and Moon evolutions and the history of our elder Angelic brothers, in real terms, all the way to now.... that I don't blame you for taking the cowards way out. It really does take study. You get most of these things wrong but your ego can't admit it. As the Tree Ents would say, "musn't be too hasty".

Of course one of the most impressive Flowerings ever recorded, at least two flowerings, are Buddha, flowering out beyond anything we ever imagined. A classification of Buddha that is truly something that has higher educational Academia of the Spirit and certainly is less linked to the race than the Individual of Buddha. Let me pin point exactly for your Politically correct failure to grasp the shool of humanity, the actual graduation, the matriculation that awaits all humanity, is one phase called Buddhahood. These are real Academic degrees, the rest of our university training is just making excuses for not facing how humanity graduates with honors and how it fails and calls down cosmic catastrophe on it's own head.

The Italians got St.Frances and his flowering is nearly as monumental as Buddha's except that St. Frances wasn't a world wide teacher, he became a living revelation of that Flowering beyond the normal Itaalian. What happened in the specific case of St. Frances revealed a highly accelerated process, and in a sense, more selfish, more introverted and linked directly to Buddha's future mission.

We could list hundreds of women and men, all of them reaching a crescendo of development in certain phases of the I AM. Noam Chomsky is very distinct in that he is a far wiser and more developed Intellectual Soul Being than you are at present. That is very clear because Chomsky has a very refined and sharply distinct intellect and an enormous seed of fair, humanitarian interest. This intense humanitarian interest will bring she/he to the highest phase of the Consciousness Soul.

Examples are everywhere one just has to grow up. In other words one has to grasp what I implied here.

Saturn=Saturday
Sun=Sunday
Moon=Monday

[now these entail the Saturn-Sun-Moon Evolutionary periods.]

Mars=Tuesday
Mercury=Wednesday

[Those complete the descending Mars forces of the I AM and the upward turning, Healing and Mercury forces - ALL OF WHICH STAND FOR CURRENT EARTH EVOLUTION]

Jupiter=Thursday
Friday=Venus

Everyone flowers and awakens in whatever place and time and at whatever phase of sentient soul, intellectual soul and consciousness soul. These various Rainbow forces act as the base, the flower pot and soil out of which the soul grows higher capacities.

However people flower, ripen and arise in various phases of their experience on Earth. The various conditions act merely as the pot and soil out of which the I AM flowers.

Bradford

...................................................................................................................................

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:32 am
Subject: Peter Staudenmaier: How are the two concepts of race related?

Dear Mr. Staudenmaier,

it seems like none of the others on this list are Blavatsky experts. I have had books by Blavatsky, Sinett, Leadbeater and Besant in my library for decades and have read them all years ago, but I do not profess to be an expert in Blavatsky and Theosophical thinking. I will gladly defer to you, as you have probably read Blavatsky more recently.

You were able to answer my last question (namely where Blavatsky speaks of the black, brown, red and yellow race. That was very helpful. Before I continue my argument regarding Steiner (where I do consider myself an expert), I want to be sure that it is well founded regarding the relationship to Theosophy and Blavatsky's thinking. This is why am I would politely like to ask you to be so kind and to respond to my last question: were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "main races" for Blavatsky? I could, of course, equally well ask: were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "root races" for Blavatsky?

As you seem to have a thorough overview over Blavatsky's thoughts on races, I am sure you will be able to help me here.

One further point: Even though this is an English speaking list, since we are both of German origin I would like to ask you politely to also employ the German custom of using last names when conversing with me, which I have done consistently. Using first names with people you have never met would generally be considered rude in the German tradition. Thank you for respecting this in future!

Best regards, Detlef Hardorp

P.S.: This is not a crucial question, but I am still wondering why Blavatsky puts "yellow and red, brown and black" in quotation marks!

___________________________________________________________

Here is the post I am referring to again for easy reference (#3400):

Hello everybody,

I find the most recent mail by Peter Staudenmaier quite helpful. He has read Blavatsky more recently than I had and was able to answer my question: "Where does Blavatsky say anything about the black, the yellow, the red, the white or the brown race? How does her concept of race relate to the traditional concept?"

He writes, among other quotes: "Blavatsky describes how a minority of Atlanteans evolved into Aryans and produced "the Northern stocks", while the "yellow and red, brown and black" are merely "the remnants of the Atlanteans", produced when the "undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition." "

Here is the passage form Blavatsky in the original ( THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol. 2, Page 743f - PS has an edition with different page numbers!):

"You do not know which was the best and most handsome generation of men which has ever lived on this earth," said the priests of Sais to Solon, according to Plato. "Only a weak seed of it, of which you (Greeks) are the descendants, is all that remains." "Their books," they added, "preserved the records of a great nation, which emerging from the Atlantic sea had invaded Europe and Asia (Timaeus). The Greeks were but the dwarfed and weak remnant of that once glorious nation. . . ." What was this nation? The secret doctrine teaches that it was the latest, seventh sub-race of the Atlanteans, already swallowed up in one of the early sub-races of the Aryan stock, one that had been gradually spreading over the continent and islands of Europe, as soon as they had begun to emerge from the seas. Descending from the high plateaux of Asia, where the two Races had sought refuge in the days of the agony of Atlantis, it had been slowly settling and colonizing the freshly emerged lands. The emigrant sub-race had rapidly increased and multiplied on that virgin soil; had divided into many families, which in their turn divided into nations. Egypt and Greece, the Phoenicians, and the Northern stocks, had thus proceeded from that one sub-race. Thousands of years later, other races -- the remnants of the Atlanteans -- "yellow and red, brown and black," began to invade the new continent. There were wars in which the new comers were defeated; and they fled, some to Africa, others to remote countries. Some of these lands became in course of time -- owing to new geological convulsions -- islands. Being thus forcibly separated from the continents, the result was that the undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition. Did not the Spaniards in the Cibola expeditions meet with WHITE savage chiefs; and has not the presence of African negro types in Europe in the pre-historic ages been now ascertained?

"Egypt and Greece, the Phoenicians, and the Northern stocks" proceed from "the latest, seventh sub-race of the Atlanteans, already swallowed up in one of the early sub-races of the Aryan stock". "Thousands of years later, other races -- the remnants of the Atlanteans -- "yellow and red, brown and black," began to invade the new continent." These fled to remote countries which became islands. "Being thus forcibly separated from the continents, the result was that the undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition." The latter seem to also include "WHITE savage chiefs", if I read Blavatsky correctly.

It is all a bit convoluted. But it does show show that Blavatsky's root races do have a biological component. I suppose this is why she called them "races" to begin with. And she calls them "root races" because they are the roots to other offspring races.

This does, of course, not negate the fact that her 7 principal root races were each assigned to consecutive time periods. The Theosophist Sinett takes this up and intellectually systematises the idea into a mechanical clockwork. With Blavatsky, it is still somewhat chaotic.

I think we are probably in agreement thus far.

I had written some more paragraphs, going on to Steiner. I will wait, however, before I post them, because I still would like to get clear about one thing with Blavatsky. That is the following:

We have seen that Blavatsky writes of the "yellow and red, brown and black" races. (An aside: does anyone know why she puts these in quotation marks?) We have also seen that she speaks of root races. She speaks of the latter as "remnants of the Atlanteans", which is the fourth root race according to Blavatsky. We seem to all agree that, for Blavatsky, "main race" and "root race" mean the same. The question remaining is: were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "main races" for Blavatsky?

I will proceed with my train of thought when this question is answered.

Best regards, Detlef Hardorp

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

March/April 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

 

Search this site powered by FreeFind