Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00311)

Koot Hoomi's example of the effects of electricity and magnetism on 
the brain is increasingly important; because, unfortunately, we are 
as cyclic as the sun.  Insommnia and irritability are directly 
linked to periods of solar flares, emanating from sunspots.  Periods 
of violence are also associated with these cycles.  

Brain disorders have skyrocketed in the last decade since the dizes 
of solar flares have hit new highs several times.  I include autism, 
which has increased over 800% since about 1988, in brain disorders.  
In this same period, the speed of magnetic north's movement has 
accelerated so rapidly that it is now predicted to be in Siberia 
within 50 years.  That's based on the current speed and does not 
consider even greater speed.  

An adept capable of illuminating a coronal field around the brain 
would be able to control physical forces that affect the brain.  
But, the larger number of people who have no idea what an adept is, 
not to mention that physical forces can be occultly controlled, tend 
to be hapless in the face of external physical forces.  

Krsanna

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Steven Levey <sallev1@...> wrote:
>
> krsanna
>    
>       Thanks for all that. Really a wonderful letter from KH. 
>       So, the next time we have an idea that is actually reaching 
out of ourselves, other than our normal lower self-based stuff, we 
can be said to be having a "brain-spot". I wager that we are not as 
cyclic in our behaviour as the Sun, and that our "Spots" need to be 
provoked consciously, as apposed to those rather regular 
littles "spots" that probably label some kind of rather normal 
behavioral thinking. 
>    
>   Steve
> 
> krsanna <timestar@...> wrote:
>   As to the current cycle that began in 1900, CNN published today 
new 
> predictions for the next solar maximum shortly after I posted some 
> of KH's comments on the sun. The continued escalation of sunspots 
> (and flares) since 1900 points to the importance of solar 
functions 
> that KH explained. 
> 
> Please note KH's simile of the brain for the sun. The 2012 end of 
> the next solar maximum corresponds with the end of the Mayan long 
> count, which began 3113 BCE. 
> 
> Krsanna
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/07/solar.storm.ap/index.html
> 
> LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A new computer model suggests the 
> next solar cycle will be more active than the previous one, 
> potentially spawning magnetic storms that will be more disruptive 
to 
> communication systems on Earth.
> 
> The next sunspot cycle will be between 30 percent to 50 percent 
more 
> intense than the last one, scientists said Monday.
> 
> The cycle will also begin a year later than expected, in late 2007 
> or early 2008, and peak around 2012, said Mausumi Dikpati of the 
> National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
> 
> The new prediction is at odds with previous forecasts, which 
> suggested that the intensity of the next solar cycle would be 
> measurably smaller.
> 
> Accurately predicting the intensity of the sunspot cycle, which 
> occurs about every 11 years, allows scientists to anticipate solar 
> storms. They are caused by solar flares, or giant eruptions that 
> burst from the surface of the sun.
> 
> Solar storms, which eject billions of tons of plasma and charged 
> particles into space, can produce dazzling northern lights, but 
also 
> disrupt power lines, radio transmissions and satellite 
communication.
> 
> The last time the solar cycle peaked was in 2001. During the last 
> cycle, solar storms caused extreme radio blackouts in the Pacific.
> 
> For decades, scientists have tracked the solar cycle and 
appearance 
> of sunspots, but they have been unable to accurately predict the 
> intensity or timing of solar storms, which increase as the number 
of 
> sunspots increases.
> 
> Dikpati, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said her 
> team tested the new computer model using previous solar cycle data 
> and had 98 percent accuracy.
> 
> David Hathaway, a solar astronomer with NASA's Marshall Space 
Flight 
> Center in Huntsville, Alabama, does not doubt that the next 
sunspot 
> cycle will be stronger than the previous one.
> 
> But Hathaway said his own research suggests that the next cycle 
will 
> occur late this year -- earlier than what Dikpati predicted.
> 
> The current research, funded by National Science Foundation, is 
> published in the latest Geophysical Research Letters.
> 
> 
> ============================================================
> Letter 93B, "The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett
> Items 6 - 12
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Brings words and photos together (easily) with
>  PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>