Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00281)

Can anybody declare, why there are so total different Letters of that 
Masters?
I have the book Mahatma letters to A.P Sinnett compiled by A.T.Barker 
3 edition.There is no letter 93b

Christina.






--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "krsanna" <timestar@...> wrote:
>


> Koot Hoomi mentions obscuration and magnetizing principles in 
letter 
> 93B and some factors of change that subsequently became important 
> after 19000.  Sunspots that began increasing in 1900 and solar 
> activity are especially pertinent to earth changes. 
> 
> Krsanna
> 
> ============================================================
> Letter 93B, "The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett
> Items 6 - 12
> 
> (6) [For Question see p. 305. EDS.]. What emerges at the end of all 
> things is not only "pure and impersonal spirit," but the 
> collective "personal" remembrances skimmed off every new fifth 
> principle in the long series of being. And, if at the end of all 
> things — say in some million of millions years hence, Spirit will 
> have to rest in its pure, impersonal non-existence, as the ONE or 
> the Absolute, still there must be "some good" in the cyclic 
process, 
> since every purified Ego has the chance in the long interims 
between 
> objective being upon the planets to exist as a Dhyan Chohan — from 
> the lowest "Devachanee" to the highest Planetary — enjoying the 
> fruits of its collective lives.
> 
> But what is "Spirit" pure and impersonal per se? Is it possible 
that 
> you should not have realized yet our meaning? why, such a Spirit is 
> a nonentity, a pure abstraction, an absolute blank to our senses — 
> even to the most spiritual. It becomes something only in union with 
> matter — hence it is always something since matter is infinite and 
> indestructible and non-existent without Spirit which, in matter is 
> Life. Separated from matter it becomes the absolute negation of 
life 
> and being, whereas matter is inseparable from it. Ask those who 
> offer the objection, whether they know anything of "life" 
> and "consciousness" beyond what they now feel on earth. What 
> conception can they have — unless natural born seers — of the state 
> and consciousness of one's individuality after it has separated 
> itself from gross earthy body? What is the good of the whole 
process 
> of life on earth — you may ask them in your turn — if we are as 
good 
> as "pure" unconscious entities before birth, during sleep, and, at 
> the end of our career? Is not death, according to the teachings of 
> Science, followed by the same state of unconsciousness as the one 
> before birth? Does not life when it quits our body become as 
> impersonal as it was before it animated the foetus? Life, after 
all, 
> the greatest problem within the ken of human conception, is a 
> mystery that the greatest of your men of Science will never solve. 
> In order to be correctly comprehended, it has to be studied in the 
> entire series of its manifestations, otherwise it can never be, not 
> only fathomed, but even comprehended in its easiest form — life, as 
> a state of being on this earth. It can never be grasped so long as 
> it is studied separately and apart from universal life. To solve 
the 
> great problem one has to become an occultist; to analyze and 
> experience with it personally in all its phases, as life on earth, 
> life beyond the limit of physical death, mineral, vegetable, animal 
> and spiritual life; life in conjunction with concrete matter as 
well 
> as life present in the imponderable atom. Let them try and examine 
> or analyze life apart from organism, and what remains of it? Simply 
> a mode of motion; which, unless our doctrine of the all-pervading, 
> infinite, omnipresent Life is accepted — though it be accepted on 
no 
> better terms than a hypothesis only a little more reasonable than 
> their scientific hypotheses which are all absurd — has to remain 
> unsolved. Will they object? Well, we will answer them by using 
their 
> own weapons. We will say that it is, and will remain for ever 
> demonstrated that since motion is all-pervading and absolute rest 
> inconceivable, that under whatever form or mask motion may appear, 
> whether as light, heat, magnetism, chemical affinity or 
electricity —
>  all these must be but phases of One and the same universal 
> omnipotent Force, a Proteus they bow to as the Great "Unknown" (see 
> Herbert Spencer) and we, simply call the "One Life," the "One Law" 
> and the "One Element." The greatest, the most scientific minds on 
> earth have been keenly pressing forward toward a solution of the 
> mystery, leaving no bye-path unexplored, no thread loose or weak in 
> this darkest of labyrinths for them, and all had to come to the 
same 
> conclusion — that of the Occultists when given only partially — 
> namely, that life in its concrete manifestations is the legitimate 
> result and consequence of chemical affinity; as to life in its 
> abstract sense, life pure and simple — well, they know no more of 
it 
> to-day than they knew in the incipient stage of their Royal 
Society. 
> They only know that organisms in certain solutions previously free 
> from life will spring up spontaneously (Pasteur and his biblical 
> piety notwithstanding) — owing to certain chemical compositions of 
> such substances. If, as I hope, in a few years, I am entirely my 
own 
> master, I may have the pleasure of demonstrating to you on your own 
> writing table that life as life is not only transformable into 
other 
> aspects or phases of the all-pervading Force, but that it can be 
> actually infused into an artificial man. Frankenstein is a myth 
only 
> so far as he is the hero of a mystic tale; in nature — he is a 
> possibility; and the physicists and physicians of the last sub-race 
> of the sixth Race will inoculate life and revive corpses as they 
now 
> inoculate small-pox, and often less comely diseases. Spirit, life 
> and matter, are not natural principles existing independently of 
> each other, but the effects of combinations produced by eternal 
> motion in Space; and they better learn it.
> 
> (7) [For Question see p. 305. EDS.]. Most undoubtedly I am so 
> permitted. But then comes the most important point; how far 
> satisfactory will my answers appear even to you? That not every new 
> law brought to light is regarded as adding a link to the chain of 
> human knowledge is shown by the ill-grace with which every fact 
> unwelcome for some reason to science, is received by its 
professors. 
> Nevertheless, whenever I can answer you — I will try to do so, only 
> hoping that you will not send it as a contribution from my pen to 
> the Journal of Science.
> 
> (8) [For Question see p. 305. EDS.]. Most assuredly they have. Rain 
> can be brought on in a small area of space — artificially and 
> without any claim to miracle or superhuman powers, though its 
secret 
> is no property of mine that I should divulge it. I am now trying to 
> obtain permission to do so. We know of no phenomenon in nature 
> entirely unconnected with either magnetism or electricity — since, 
> where there are motion, heat, friction, light, there magnetism and 
> its alter ego (according to our humble opinion) electricity will 
> always appear, as either cause or effect — or rather both if we but 
> fathom the manifestation to its origin. All the phenomena of earth 
> currents, terrestrial magnetism and atmospheric electricity are due 
> to the fact that the earth is an electrified conductor, whose 
> potential is ever changing owing to its rotation and its annual 
> orbital motion, the successive cooling and heating of the air, the 
> formation of clouds and rain, storms and winds, etc. This you may 
> perhaps, find in some text book. But then Science would be 
unwilling 
> to admit that all these changes are due to akasic magnetism 
> incessantly generating electric currents which tend to restore the 
> disturbed equilibrium. By directing the most powerful of electric 
> batteries, the human frame electrified by a certain process, you 
can 
> stop rain on some given point by making "a hole in the rain cloud," 
> as the occultists term it. By using other strongly magnetized 
> implements within, so to say, an insulated area, rain can be 
> produced artificially. I regret my inability to explain to you the 
> process more clearly. You know the effects produced by trees and 
> plants on rain clouds; and how their strong magnetic nature 
attracts 
> and even feeds those clouds over the tops of the trees. Science 
> explains it otherwise, maybe. Well, I cannot help it, for such is 
> our knowledge and fruits of milleniums of observations and 
> experience. Were the present to fall into the hands of Hume, he 
> would be sure to remark that I am vindicating the charge publicly 
> brought by him against us: "Whenever unable to answer your 
arguments 
> (?) they (we) calmly reply that their (our) rules do not admit of 
> this or that." Charge notwithstanding, I am compelled to answer 
that 
> since the secret is not mine I cannot make of it a marketable 
> commodity. Let some physicists calculate the amount of heat 
required 
> to vaporize a certain quantity of water. Then let them compute the 
> quantity of rain needed to cover an area — say, of one square mile 
> to a depth of one inch. For this amount of vaporization they will 
> require, of course, an amount of heat that would be equal to at 
> least five million 4 tons of coal. Now the amount of energy of 
which 
> this consumption of heat would be the equivalent corresponds (as 
any 
> mathematician could tell you) — to that which would be required to 
> raise a weight of upwards of ten million tons, one mile high. How 
> can one man generate such amount of heat and energy? Preposterous, 
> absurd! — we are all lunatics, and you who listen to us will be 
> placed in the same category if you ever venture to repeat this 
> proposition. Yet I say that one man alone can do it, and very 
easily 
> if he is but acquainted with a certain "physico-spiritual"  lever 
in 
> himself, far more powerful than that of Archimedes. Even simple 
> muscular contraction is always accompanied with electric and 
> magnetic phenomena, and there is the strongest connection between 
> the magnetism of the earth, the changes of weather and man, who is 
> the best barometer living, if he but knew [how] to decipher it 
> properly; again, the state of the sky can always be ascertained by 
> the variations shown by magnetic instruments.  It is now several 
> years since I had an opportunity of reading the deductions of 
> Science upon this subject; therefore, unless I go to the trouble of 
> catching up what I may have remained ignorant of, I do not know the 
> latest conclusions of Science. But with us, it is an established 
> fact that it is the earth's magnetism that produces wind, storms, 
> and rain. What science seems to know of it is but secondary 
symptoms 
> always induced by that magnetism and she may very soon find out her 
> present errors. Earth's magnetic attraction of meteoric dust, and 
> the direct influence of the latter upon the sudden changes of 
> temperature, especially in the matter of heat and cold, is not a 
> settled question to the present day, I believe.5 It was doubted 
> whether the fact of our earth passing through a region of space in 
> which there are more or less of meteoric masses has any bearing 
upon 
> the height of our atmosphere being increased or decreased, or even 
> upon the state of weather. But we think we could easily prove it; 
> and since they accept the fact that the relative distribution and 
> proportion of land and water on our globe may be due to the great 
> accumulation upon it of meteoric dust, snow — especially in our 
> northern regions — being full of meteoric iron and magnetic 
> particles; and deposits of the latter being found even at the 
bottom 
> of seas and oceans, I wonder how Science has not hitherto 
understood 
> that every atmospheric change and disturbance was due to the 
> combined magnetism of the two great masses between which our 
> atmosphere is compressed! I call this meteoric dust a "mass" for it 
> is really one. High above our earth's surface the air is 
impregnated 
> and space filled with magnetic, or meteoric dust, which does not 
> even belong to our solar system. Science having luckily discovered 
> that, as our earth with all the other planets is carried along 
> through space, it receives a greater proportion of that dust matter 
> on its northern than on its southern hemisphere, knows that to this 
> are due the preponderating number of the continents in the former 
> hemisphere, and the greater abundance of snow and moisture. 
Millions 
> of such meteors and even of the finest particles reach us yearly 
and 
> daily, and all our temple knives are made of this "heavenly" iron, 
> which reaches us without having undergone any change — the 
magnetism 
> of the earth keeping them in cohesion. Gaseous matter is 
continually 
> added to our atmosphere from the never ceasing fall of meteoric 
> strongly magnetic matter, and yet it seems with them still an open 
> question whether magnetic conditions have anything to do with the 
> precipitation of rain or not! I do not know of any "set of motions 
> established by pressures, expansions, etc., due in the first 
> instance to solar energy." Science makes too much and too little at 
> the same time of "solar energy" and even of the Sun itself; and the 
> Sun has nothing to do whatever with rain and very little with heat. 
> I was under the impression that science was aware that the glacial 
> periods as well as those periods when temperature is "like that of 
> the carboniferous age," are due to the decrease and increase or 
> rather to the expansion of our atmosphere, which expansion is 
itself 
> due to the same meteoric presence? At any rate, we all know, that 
> the heat that the earth receives by radiation from the sun is at 
the 
> utmost one third if not less of the amount received by her directly 
> from the meteors.
> 
> (9) [For Question see p. 305. EDS.]. Call it a chromosphere or 
> atmosphere, it can be called neither; for it is simply the magnetic 
> and ever present aura of the sun, seen by astronomers only for a 
> brief few moments during the eclipse, and by some of our chelas 
> whenever they like — of course while in a certain induced state. A 
> counterpart of what the astronomers call the red flames in 
> the "corona" may be seen in Reichenbach's crystals or in any other 
> strongly magnetic body. The head of a man in a strong ecstatic 
> condition, when all the electricity of his system is centered 
around 
> the brain, will represent — especially in darkness — a perfect 
> simile of the Sun during such periods. The first artist who drew 
the 
> aureoles about the heads of his God and Saints was not inspired, 
but 
> represented it on the authority of temple pictures and traditions 
of 
> the sanctuary and the chambers of initiation where such phenomena 
> took place. The closer to the head or to the aura-emitting body, 
the 
> stronger and the more effulgent the emanation (due to hydrogen, 
> science tells us, in the case of the flames); hence the irregular 
> red flames around the Sun or the "inner corona." The fact that 
these 
> are not always present in equal quantity shows only the constant 
> fluctuation of the magnetic matter and its energy, upon which also 
> depend the variety and number of spots. During periods of magnetic 
> inertia the spots disappear, or rather remain invisible. The 
further 
> the emanation shoots out the more it loses in intensity, until 
> gradually subsiding it fades out; hence the "outer corona," its 
> rayed shape being due entirely to the latter phenomenon whose 
> effulgence proceeds from the magnetic nature of the matter and the 
> electric energy and not at all from intensely hot particles, as 
> asserted by some astronomers. All this is terribly unscientific, 
> nevertheless a fact, to which I may add another by reminding you 
> that the Sun we see is not at all the central planet of our little 
> Universe, but only its veil or its reflection. Science has 
> tremendous odds against studying that planet which luckily for us 
we 
> have not; foremost of all — the constant tremors of our atmosphere 
> which prevent them from judging correctly the little they do see. 
> This impediment was never in the way of the ancient Chaldee and 
> Egyptian astronomers; nor is it an obstacle to us, for we have 
means 
> of arresting, or counteracting such tremors — acquainted as we are 
> with all the akasic conditions. No more than the rain secret would 
> this secret — supposing we do divulge it — be of any practical use 
> to your men of Science unless they become Occultists and sacrifice 
> long years to the acquirement of powers. Only fancy a Huxley or a 
> Tyndall studying Yog-vidya! Hence the many mistakes into which they 
> fall and the conflicting hypotheses of your best authorities. For 
> instance; the Sun is full of iron vapours — a fact that was 
> demonstrated by the spectroscope, showing that the light of the 
> corona consisted largely of a line in the green part of the 
> spectrum, very nearly coinciding with an iron line. Yet Professors 
> Young and Lockyer rejected that, under the witty pretext, if I 
> remember, that if the corona were composed of minute particles like 
> a dust cloud (and it is this that we call "magnetic matter") these 
> particles would (1) fall upon the sun's body, (2) comets were known 
> to pass through this vapour without any visible effect on them, (3) 
> Professor Young's spectroscope showed that the coronal line was not 
> identical with the iron one, etc. Why they should call those 
> objections "scientific" is more than we can tell.
> 
> (1) The reason why the particles — since they call them so — do not 
> fall upon the sun's body is self-evident. There are forces co-
> existent with gravitation of which they know nothing, besides that 
> other fact that there is no gravitation properly speaking, only 
> attraction and repulsion. (2) How could comets be affected by the 
> said passage since their "passing through" is simply an optical 
> illusion; they could not pass within the area of attraction without 
> being immediately annihilated by that force of which no vril can 
> give an adequate idea, since there can be nothing on earth that 
> could be compared with it. Passing as the comets do through 
> a "reflection" no wonder that the said vapour has "no visible 
effect 
> on these light bodies." (3) The coronal line may not seem identical 
> through the best "grating spectroscope," nevertheless, the corona 
> contains iron as well as other vapours. To tell you of what it does 
> consist is idle, since I am unable to translate the words we use 
for 
> it, and that no such matter exists (not in our planetary system, at 
> any rate) — but in the sun. The fact is, that what you call the Sun 
> is simply the reflection of the huge "storehouse" of our System 
> wherein ALL its forces are generated and preserved; the Sun being 
> the heart and brain of our pigmy Universe, we might compare its 
> faculae — those millions of small, intensely brilliant bodies of 
> which the Sun's surface away from the spots is made up — with the 
> blood corpuscles of that luminary, though some of them as correctly 
> conjectured by Science are as large as Europe. Those blood 
> corpuscles are the electric and magnetic matter in its sixth and 
> seventh state. What are those long white filaments twisted like so 
> many ropes, of which the penumbra of the Sun is made up? What the 
> central part that is seen like a huge flame ending in fiery spires, 
> and the transparent clouds, or rather vapours formed of delicate 
> threads of silvery light, that hangs over those flames — what — but 
> magneto-electric aura — the phlogiston of the Sun? Science may go 
on 
> speculating for ever, yet so long as she does not renounce two or 
> three of her cardinal errors she will find herself groping for ever 
> in the dark. Some of her greatest misconceptions are found in her 
> limited notions on the law of gravitation; her denial that matter 
> may be imponderable; her newly invented term "force" and the absurd 
> and tacitly accepted idea that force is capable of existing per se, 
> or of acting any more than life, outside, independent of, or in any 
> other wise than through matter; in other words that force is 
> anything but matter in one of her highest states, the last three on 
> the ascending scale being denied because only science knows nothing 
> of them; and her utter ignorance of the universal Proteus, its 
> functions and importance in the economy of nature — magnetism and 
> electricity. Tell Science that even in those days of the decline of 
> the Roman Empire, when the tattooed Britisher used to offer to the 
> Emperor Claudius his nazzur 6 of "electron" in the shape of a 
string 
> of amber beads — that even then there were yet men remaining aloof 
> from the immoral masses, who knew more of electricity and magnetism 
> than they, the men of science, do now,  and science will laugh at 
> you as bitterly as she now does over your kind dedication to me. 
> Verily, when your astronomers, speaking of sun-matter, term those 
> lights and flames "clouds of vapour" and "gases unknown to science" 
> (rather!) chased by mighty whirlwinds and cyclones — whereas we 
know 
> it to be simply magnetic matter in its usual state of activity — we 
> feel inclined to smile at the expressions. Can one imagine 
> the "Sun's fires fed with purely mineral matter" — with meteorites 
> highly charged with hydrogen giving the "Sun a far-reaching 
> atmosphere of ignited gas"? We know that the invisible sun is 
> composed of that which has neither name, nor can it be compared to 
> anything known by your science — on earth; and that 
its "reflection" 
> contains still less of anything like "gases," mineral matter, or 
> fire, though even we when treating of it in your civilized tongue 
> are compelled to use such expressions as "vapour" and "magnetic 
> matter." To close the subject, the coronal changes have no effect 
> upon the earth's climate, though spots have — and Professor N. 
> Lockyer is mostly wrong in his deductions. The Sun is neither a 
> solid nor a liquid, nor yet a gaseous globe; but a gigantic ball of 
> electromagnetic Forces, the store-house of universal life and 
> motion, from which the latter pulsate in all directions, feeding 
the 
> smallest atom as the greatest genius with the same material unto 
the 
> end of the Maha Yug.
> 
> (10) [For Question see p. 305. EDS.]. I believe not. The stars are 
> distant from us at least 500,000 times as far as the Sun and some 
as 
> many times more. The strong accumulation of meteoric matter and the 
> atmospheric tremors are always in the way. If your astronomers 
could 
> climb on the height of that meteoric dust, with their telescopes 
and 
> havanas they might trust more than they can now in their 
> photometers. How can they? Neither can the real degree of intensity 
> of that light be known on earth — hence no trustworthy basis for 
> calculating magnitudes and distances can be had — nor have they 
> hitherto made sure in a single instance (except in the matter of 
one 
> star in Cassiopeia) which stars shine by reflected and which by 
> their own light. The working of the best double star photometers is 
> deceptive. Of this I have made sure, so far back as in the spring 
of 
> 1878 while watching the observations made through a Pickering 
> photometer. The discrepancy in the observations upon a star (near 
> Gamma Ceti) amounted at times to half a magnitude. No planets but 
> one have hitherto been discovered outside of the solar system, with 
> all their photometers, while we know with the sole help of our 
> spiritual naked eye a number of them; every completely matured Sun-
> star having, like in our own system, several companion planets in 
> fact. The famous "polarization of light" test is about as 
> trustworthy as all others. Of course, the mere fact of their 
> starting from a false premise cannot vitiate either their 
> conclusions or astronomical prophecies, since both are 
> mathematically correct in their mutual relations, and that it 
> answers the given object. [Neither] the Chaldees nor yet our old 
> Rishis had either your telescopes or photometers; and yet their 
> astronomical predictions were faultless, the mistakes, very slight 
> ones in truth — fathered upon them by their modern rivals — 
> proceeding from the mistakes of the latter.
> 
> You must not complain of my too long answers to your very short 
> questions, since I answer you for your instruction as a student of 
> occultism, my "lay" chela, and not at all with a view of answering 
> the Journal of Science. I am no man of science with regard to, or 
in 
> connection with modern learning. My knowledge of your Western 
> Sciences is very limited in fact; and you will please bear in mind 
> that all my answers are based upon, and derived from, our Eastern 
> occult doctrines, regardless of their agreement or disagreement 
with 
> those of exact science. Hence I say: — 
> 
> "The Sun's surface emits per square mile as much light (in 
> proportion) as can be emitted from any body." But what can you mean 
> in this case by "light"? The latter is not an independent 
principle, 
> and I rejoiced at the introduction, with a view to facilitate means 
> of observation of the "diffraction spectrum;" since by abolishing 
> all these imaginary independent existences, such as heat, actinism, 
> light, etc., it rendered to Occult Science the greatest service, by 
> vindicating in the eyes of her modern sister our very ancient 
theory 
> that every phenomenon being but the effect of the diversified 
> motions of what we call Akasa (not your ether) there was, in fact, 
> but one element, the causative principle of all. But since your 
> question is asked with a view to settling a disputed point in 
modern 
> science I will try to answer it in the clearest way I can. I say 
> then, no, and will give you my reasons why. They cannot know it, 
for 
> the simple reason that heretofore they have in reality found no 
sure 
> means of measuring the velocity of light. The experiments made by 
> Fizeau and Cornu, known as the two best investigators of light in 
> the world of science, notwithstanding the general satisfaction at 
> the results obtained, are not trustworthy data either in respect to 
> the velocity with which sunlight travels or to its quantity. The 
> methods adopted by both these Frenchmen are yielding correct 
results 
> (at any rate approximately correct, since there is a variation of 
> 227 miles per second between the result of the observations of both 
> experimenters, albeit made with the same apparatus) — only as 
> regards the velocity of light between our earth and the upper 
> regions of its atmosphere. Their toothed wheel, revolving at a 
known 
> velocity records, of course, the strong ray of light which passes 
> through one of the niches of the wheel, and then has its point of 
> light obscured whenever a tooth passes — accurately enough. The 
> instrument is very ingenious and can hardly fail to give splendid 
> results on a journey of a few thousand meters there and back; there 
> being between the Paris observatory and its fortifications no 
> atmosphere, no meteoric masses to impede the ray's progress; and 
> that ray finding quite a different quality of a medium to travel 
> upon than the ether of Space, the ether between the Sun and the 
> meteoric continent above our heads, the velocity of light will of 
> course show some 185,000 and odd miles per second, and your 
> physicists shout "Eureka"! Nor do any of the other devices 
contrived 
> by science to measure that velocity since 1878 answer any better. 
> All they can say is that their calculations are so far correct. 
> Could they measure light above our atmosphere they would soon find 
> that they were wrong.
> 
> (11) [For Question see p. 305. EDS.]. It is — so far; but is fast 
> changing. Your science has a theory, I believe, that if the earth 
> were suddenly placed in extremely cold regions — for instance where 
> it would exchange places with Jupiter — all our seas and rivers 
> would be suddenly transformed into solid mountains; the air, — or 
> rather a portion of the aeriform substances which compose it — 
would 
> be metamorphosed from their state of invisible fluid owing to the 
> absence of heat into liquids (which now exist on Jupiter, but of 
> which men have no idea on earth). Realize, or try to imagine the 
> reverse condition, and it will be that of Jupiter at the present 
> moment.
> 
> The whole of our system is imperceptibly shifting its position in 
> space. The relative distance between planets remaining ever the 
> same, and being in no wise affected by the displacement of the 
whole 
> system; and the distance between the latter and the stars and other 
> suns being so incommensurable as to produce but little if any 
> perceptible change for centuries and milleniums to come, no 
> astronomer will perceive it telescopically, until Jupiter and some 
> other planets, whose little luminous points hide now from our sight 
> millions upon millions of stars (all but some 5000 or 6000) — will 
> suddenly let us have a peep at a few of the Raja-Suns they are now 
> hiding. There is such a king-star right behind Jupiter, that no 
> mortal physical eye has ever seen during this, our Round. Could it 
> be so perceived it would appear, through the best telescope with a 
> power of multiplying its diameter ten thousand times, still a small 
> dimensionless point, thrown into the shadow by the brightness of 
any 
> planet; nevertheless — this world is thousands of times larger than 
> Jupiter. The violent disturbance of its atmosphere and even its red 
> spot that so intrigues science lately, are due — (1) to that 
> shifting and (2) to the influence of that Raja-Star. In its present 
> position in space, imperceptibly small though it be, the metallic 
> substances of which it is mainly composed are expanding and 
> gradually transforming themselves into aeriform fluids — the state 
> of our own earth and its six sister globes before the first Round — 
> and becoming part of its atmosphere. Draw your inferences and 
> deductions from this, my dear "lay" chela, but beware lest in doing 
> so you sacrifice your humble instructor and the occult doctrine 
> itself on the altar of your wrathful Goddess — modern science.
> 
> (12) [For Question see p. 305. EDS.]. I am afraid not much, since 
> our Sun is but a reflection. The only great truth uttered by 
Siemens 
> is that inter-stellar space is filled with highly attenuated 
matter, 
> such as may be put in air vacuum tubes, and which stretches from 
> planet to planet and from star to star. But this truth has no 
> bearing upon his main facts. The sun gives all and takes back 
> nothing from its system. The sun gathers nothing "at the poles" — 
> which are always free even from the famous "red flames" at all 
> times, not only during the eclipses. How is it that with their 
> powerful telescopes they have failed to perceive any 
> such "gathering" since their glasses show them even 
> the "superlatively fleecy clouds" on the photosphere? Nothing can 
> reach the sun from without the boundaries of its own system in the 
> shape of such gross matter as "attenuated gases." Every bit of 
> matter in all its seven states is necessary to the vitality of the 
> various and numberless systems — worlds in formation, suns 
awakening 
> anew to life, etc., and they have none to spare even for their best 
> neighbours and next of kin. They are mothers, not stepmothers, and 
> would not take away one crumb from the nutrition of their children. 
> The latest theory of radiant energy which shows that there is no 
> such thing in nature, properly speaking, as chemical light, or heat 
> ray is the only approximately correct one. For indeed, there is but 
> one thing — radiant energy which is inexhaustible and knows neither 
> increase nor decrease and will go on with its self-generating work 
> to the end of the Solar manvantara. The absorption of Solar Forces 
> by the earth is tremendous; yet it is, or may be demonstrated that 
> the latter receives hardly 25 per cent. of the chemical power of 
its 
> rays, for these are despoiled of 75 per cent. during their vertical 
> passage through the atmosphere at the moment they reach the outer 
> boundary "of the aerial ocean." And even those rays lose about 20 
> per cent. in illuminating and caloric power, we are told. What, 
with 
> such a waste must then be the recuperative power of our Father-
> Mother Sun? Yes; call it "Radiant Energy" if you will; we call it 
> Life — all-pervading, omnipresent life, ever at work in its great 
> laboratory — the SUN.
>