Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00276)

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.