Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00028)

Jerry,

> If this description is wrong, then for me, it throws
>suspicion upon other information that Purucker has expanded upon.
>The more often I find him wrong, the more cautious and critical I
>would become about his writings. If his descriptions turned out
>to be wrong often enough, and his errors pervasive enough, I
>would eventually discount his writings altogether at some point.
>
>In another message, Brenda continues:
>
>>
>>And in THE MAHATMA LETTERS, p. 167, Letter XXIIIB, 1882, K.H.
>>says there is a Raja Sun behind Jupiter which no mortal physical
>>eye has ever seen during this Round.
>>
>>Should I attempt to muster up proof for this?
>
> Why not? What kind of proof do you want to offer?

The proof that I would offer, if I could, would be my own personal
investigation through clairvoyance or discussion with somebody I trusted who
used clairvoyance.

Your disproofs tend to be based on scientific findings, such as when the
space probes photographed Mars. This isn't the same method of discovery so
why use it as definitive, especially when you seem to be someone who has
studied the existence of inner realms and their importance in any discussion
about life.

In de Purucker's words, "That is what the scientific statment amounts to;
nobody who believes that other planets are inhabited has ever made the
preposterous claim that man, as we know him here, could live on these
planets. Consequently the scientific answer is not responsive to the
hypothesis that other planets are inhabited, for each planet is inhabited by
its own kind and type of inhabitants, fitted by evolution to there."

And he says that man on other planets is part of the ecosystem of each
planet, living harmoniously with the planet's elements, temperatures,
atmosphere, etc.