Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00316)

Carlos is correct.  I am looking at the chronological letters 
(published by the TPH Manila, Philippines).  In this version 93B 
corresponds with 23B.

Krsanna

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline cardoso aveline" 
<carlosaveline@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Christina,
> 
> Look for Letter 23-B.
> 
> I guess 93-B is the number of the same letter in the Chronological 
Edition 
> (TPH Philippines).
> I am not at the Library now, so I may be wrong, but this is my 
guess.  Let 
> me know if I am wrong.
> 
> By the way, I recommend the Chronological Edition because in it 
you can read 
> the Letters as a Story, a historical process, and it has useful, 
> contextualizing introductions to Each Letters.
> 
> Chronological edition, plus TUP edition, would make a great 
material for 
> study.
> 
> Best regards,  Carlos.
> 
> 
> >From: "christinaleestemaker" <christinaleestemaker@...>
> >Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Theos-World Re: Koot Hoomi mentions obscuration
> >Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:08:11 -0000
> >
> >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.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Copa 2006: Jα estα na hora de saber o que ι `Freundschaftsspiel' 
Clique 
> aqui! http://copa.br.msn.com/extra/dicionario/
>