Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00284)

Since there has been so much comment about "precipitation" lately, it 
occurs to me it might amuse someone to say something about it.

Suppose someone writes a "mahatma" letter. The stationery and the 
ink which is used to write on it are both composed of atoms, which 
are held together by a force called in the SD "cohesion." (Modern 
chemists might use different terminology, but everyone agrees that 
this force exists.) This is listed as one of the seven "occult 
forces" which is to say that it is one of seven ways the One Force is 
perceived by our sevenfold consciousness. There is only one force, 
in other words, but it manifests to our consciousness in seven 
different ways.

Having written the letter, if the "mahatma" were somehow to suspend 
the force of cohesion, the atoms which compose it would scatter and 
the letter would completely disintegrate. This is quite easily done 
according to some but there is some question whether their method is 
the same as the one used by the nineteenth century mahatmas. Now 
whereas the letter disappears from view (even though the atoms which 
composed it are still present) the kama rupa of the letter still 
persists for a time. That this is so is usually taught and 
demonstrated using Kirlian photos of leaves which have been mangled 
by someone with a pair of scissors. In the Kirlian photo the emergy 
pattern of the leaf appears intact even though part of it has been 
cut off. There are other demonstrations of the principle which are 
more esoteric in character. This kama rupa, unlike the physical 
letter, can be sent through space at tremendous speed (assuming of 
course that you accept the reality of "astral projection." There is 
no fundamental difference between projecting the kama rupa of an 
object and projecting the kama rupa of a man, except that the man 
does not have to disintegrate.) The problem then is to attract a new 
set of atoms at the point of destination so that the kama rupa 
becomes the mold or prototype as it were of a new letter. The new 
letter would be identical in every way to the original and 
indistinguishable from it, but would not be composed of the same 
atoms.

In one of Blavatsky's articles (this is from memory) it would appear 
that the kama rupa of the ink was in some cases what was used (how 
one would separate the kama rupa of the ink from that of the 
stationery itself I do not know, so pls don't ask). At the 
destination the amanuensis chela would then use a piece of writing 
paper and cause atoms of ink to scatter themselves over the paper in 
the correct form.

This of course applies ONLY to those letters which were actually 
precipitated, which most of them were not.

And so that is the mystery of precipitation at a very high level. 
How all this is done is of course much more complex and probably 
verboten as a public subject. In the case of the solar system, atoms 
scattered in space would come together to reconstitute a planet long 
disappeared using the preexisting kama rupa of the planet for a 
basis. It is similar to, but not idential to, the nebular 
hypothesis, in other words. The kama rupa is connected in complex 
ways with karma, so we are told the reappearance of the universe at 
the beginning of every manvantara has to do with karma. All of this 
is in TS literature, but explained in a deliberately obfuscated form.

Anyone who wants to do so badly enough can find out how this is 
actually done, but it should be said that Blavatsky et al considered 
the actual practice (as distinguished from merely reading about it) 
to entail some risk to the practitioner. For that reason the 
techniques were guarded. Also I am not aware of anyone in modern 
times achieving the degree of success claimed by the mahatmas, 
although some have claimed lesser degrees of success with this. 
There is therefore no experimental proof that I am aware of (as 
distinguished from the stories we have inherited) that precipitation 
ever happened. The fact that these mahatmas had such a complex 
theory (the above is a mere sketch) to explain it and such a complex 
system of practices to achieve it makes it unlikely that they or 
Blavatsky were the mere vulgar charlatans that some have said. That 
is the main reason this subject is worth discussing. It has some 
historical significance as well as esoteric significance.

If anyone quotes this on web sites or cross posts it anywhere or 
publishes it in any other form, please leave my name OFF as the 
originator. I don't mind seeing the words somewhere, but I do not 
want to see my name except on this forum.