And now Occultism puts to Science the question: Is light a body, or is it
not? Whatever the answer of the latter, the former is prepared to show
that, to this day, the most eminent Physicists have no real knowledge on
the subject. To know what light is, and whether it is an actual substance
or a mere undulation of the “ethereal medium,” Science has first to learn
what Matter, Atom, Ether, Force, are in reality. Now, the truth is, that
it knows nothing of any of these, and admits its ignorance. It has not
even agreed what to believe in, as dozens of hypotheses on the same
subject, emanating from various and very eminent Scientists, are
antagonistic to each other and often self‐contradictory. Thus their
learned speculations may, with a stretch of good‐will, be accepted as
“working hypotheses” in a secondary sense, as Stallo puts it. But being
radically inconsistent with each other, they must finally end by mutually
destroying themselves. As declared by the author of _Concepts of Modem
Physics_:
It must not be forgotten that the several departments of science
are simply arbitrary divisions of science at large. In these
several departments the same physical object may be considered
under different aspects. The physicist may study its molecular
relations, while the chemist determines its atomic constitution.
But when they both deal with the same element or agent, it cannot
have one set of properties in physics, and another set
contradictory of them, in chemistry. If the physicist and chemist
alike assume the existence of ultimate atoms absolutely invariable
in bulk and weight, the atom cannot be a cube or oblate spheroid
for physical, and a sphere for chemical purposes. A group of
constant atoms cannot be an aggregate of extended and absolutely
inert and impenetrable masses in a crucible or retort, and a
system of mere centres of force as part of a magnet or of a
Clamond battery. The universal æther cannot be soft and mobile to
please the chemist, and rigid‐elastic to satisfy the physicist; it
cannot be continuous at the command of Sir William Thomson and
discontinuous on the suggestion of Cauchy or Fresnel.(792)
The eminent Physicist, G. A. Hirn, may likewise be quoted as saying the
same thing in the 43rd Volume of the _Mémoires de l’Académie Royale de
Belgique_, which we translate from the French, as cited:
When one sees the assurance with which to‐day are affirmed
doctrines which attribute the collectivity, the universality of
the phenomena to the motions alone of the atom, one has a right to
expect to find likewise unanimity in the qualities assigned to
this unique being, the foundation of all that exists. Now, from
the first examination of the particular systems proposed, one
finds the strangest deception; one perceives that the atom of the
chemist, the atom of the physicist, that of the metaphysician, and
that of the mathematician ... have absolutely nothing in common
but the name! The inevitable result is the existing subdivision of
our sciences, each of which, in its own little pigeon‐hole,
constructs an atom which satisfies the requirements of the
phenomena it studies, without troubling itself in the least about
the requirements proper to the phenomena of the neighbouring
pigeon‐hole. The metaphysician banishes the principles of
attraction and repulsion as dreams; the mathematician, who
analyses the laws of elasticity and those of the propagation of
light, admits them implicitly, without even naming them.... The
chemist cannot explain the grouping of the atoms, in his often
complicated molecules, without attributing to his atoms specific
distinguishing qualities; _for the physicist and the
metaphysician, partisans of the modern doctrines, the atom is, on
the contrary, always and everywhere the same_. What am I saying?
There is no agreement even in one and the same science as to the
properties of the atom. Each constructs an atom to suit his own
fancy, in order to explain some special phenomenon with which he
is particularly concerned.(793)
The above is the photographically correct image of Modern Science and
Physics. The “pre‐requisite of that incessant play of the ’scientific
imagination’,” which is so often found in Professor Tyndall’s eloquent
discourses, is vivid indeed, as is shown by Stallo, and for contradictory
variety it leaves far behind it any “phantasies” of Occultism. However
that may be, if physical theories are confessedly “mere formal,
explanatory, didactic devices,” and if, to use the words of a critic of
Stallo, “atomism is only a symbolical graphic system,”(794) then the
Occultist can hardly be regarded as assuming too much, when he places
alongside of these “devices” and “symbolical systems” of Modern Science,
the symbols and devices of Archaic Teachings.
“An Lumen Sit Corpus, Nec Non?”
Most decidedly light is not a body, we are told. Physical Sciences say
light is a force, a vibration, the undulation of Ether. It is the property
or quality of Matter, or even an affection thereof—never _a body_!
Just so. For this discovery, the knowledge, whatever it may be worth, that
light or caloric is not a motion of _material particles_, Science is
chiefly, if not solely indebted, to Sir William Grove. It was he who in a
lecture at the London Institution, in 1842, was the first to show that
“heat, light,(795) may be considered as affections of matter itself, and
not of a distinct ethereal, ‘imponderable,’ fluid [a state of matter
_now_] permeating it.”(796) Yet, perhaps, for some Physicists—as for
Œrsted, a very eminent Scientist—Force and Forces were tacitly “Spirit
[and hence Spirits] in Nature.” What several rather mystical Scientists
taught was that light, heat, magnetism, electricity and gravity, etc.,
were not the final Causes of the visible phenomena, including planetary
motion, but were themselves the secondary _effects of other Causes_, for
which Science in our day cares very little, but in which Occultism
believes; for the Occultists have exhibited proofs of the validity of
their claims in every age. And in what age were there no Occultists and no
Adepts?
Sir Isaac Newton held to the Pythagorean corpuscular theory, and was also
inclined to admit its consequences; which made the Comte de Maistre hope,
at one time, that Newton would ultimately lead Science back to the
recognition of the fact that Forces and the Celestial Bodies _were
propelled and guided by Intelligences_.(797) But de Maistre counted
without his host. The innermost thoughts and ideas of Newton were
perverted, and of his great mathematical learning only the mere physical
husk was turned to account.
According to one atheistic Idealist, Dr. Lewins:
When Sir Isaac, in 1687 ... showed mass and atom acted upon ... by
innate activity ... he effectually disposed of Spirit, Anima, or
Divinity, as supererogatory.
Had poor Sir Isaac foreseen to what use his successors and followers would
apply his “gravity,” that pious and religious man would surely have
quietly eaten his apple, and never have breathed a word about any
mechanical ideas connected with its fall.
Great contempt is shown by Scientists for Metaphysics generally and for
Ontological Metaphysics especially. But whenever the Occultists are bold
enough to raise their diminished heads, we see that Materialistic,
Physical Science is honey‐combed with Metaphysics;(798) that its most
fundamental principles, while inseparably wedded to transcendentalism, are
nevertheless, in order to show Modern Science divorced from such “dreams,”
tortured and often ignored in the maze of contradictory theories and
hypotheses. A very good corroboration of this charge lies in the fact that
Science finds itself absolutely compelled to accept the “hypothetical”
Ether, and to try to explain it on the materialistic grounds of atomo‐
mechanical laws. This attempt has led directly to the most fatal
discrepancies and radical inconsistencies between the assumed nature of
Ether and its physical behaviour. A second proof is found in the many
contradictory statements made about the Atom—the most metaphysical object
in creation.
Now, what does the modern science of Physics know of Ether, the first
concept of which belongs undeniably to ancient Philosophers, the Greeks
having borrowed it from the Âryans, and the origin of modern Ether being
found in, and disfigured from, Âkâsha? This disfigurement is claimed as a
modification and refinement of the idea of Lucretius. Let us then examine
the modern concept, from several scientific volumes containing the
admissions of the Physicists themselves.
As Stallo shows, the existence of Ether is accepted in Physical Astronomy,
in ordinary Physics, and in Chemistry.
By the astronomers, this æther was originally regarded as a fluid
of extreme tenuity and mobility, offering no sensible resistance
to the motions of celestial bodies, and the question of its
continuity or discontinuity was not seriously mooted. Its main
function in modern astronomy has been to serve as a basis for
hydro‐dynamical theories of gravitation. In physics this fluid
appeared for some time in several _rôles_ in connection with the
“imponderables” [so cruelly put to death by Sir William Grove],
some physicists going so far as to identify it with one or more of
them.(799)
Stallo then points out the change caused by the kinetic theories; that
from the date of the dynamical theory of heat, Ether was chosen in Optics
as a substratum for luminous undulations. Next, in order to explain the
dispersion and polarization of light, Physicists had to resort once more
to their “scientific imagination,” and forthwith endowed the Ether with
(_a_) atomic or molecular structure, and (_b_) with an enormous
elasticity, “so that its resistance to deformation far exceeded that of
the most rigid elastic bodies.” This necessitated the _theory of the
essential discontinuity of Matter_, hence of Ether. After having accepted
this discontinuity, in order to account for dispersion and polarization,
theoretical impossibilities were discovered with regard to such
dispersion. Cauchy’s “scientific imagination” saw in Atoms “material
points without extension,” and he proposed, in order to obviate the most
formidable obstacles to the undulatory theory (namely, some well‐known
mechanical theorems which stood in the way), to assume that the ethereal
medium of propagation, instead of being continuous, should consist of
particles separated by sensible distances. Fresnel rendered the same
service to the phenomena of polarization. E. B. Hunt upset the theories of
both.(800) There are now men of Science who proclaim them “materially
fallacious,” while others—the “atomo‐mechanicalists”—cling to them with
desperate tenacity. The supposition of an _atomic_ or _molecular
constitution_ of Ether is upset, moreover, by thermo‐dynamics, for Clerk
Maxwell showed that such a medium would be simply _gas_.(801) The
hypothesis of “finite intervals” is thus proven of no avail as a
supplement to the undulatory theory. Besides, eclipses fail to reveal any
such variation of colour as is supposed by Cauchy, on the assumption that
the chromatic rays are propagated with different velocities. Astronomy has
pointed out more than one phenomenon absolutely at variance with this
doctrine.
Thus, while in one department of Physics the atomo‐molecular constitution
of the Ether is accepted in order to account for one special set of
phenomena, in another department such a constitution is found to be quite
subversive of a number of well‐ascertained facts; and Hirn’s charges are
thus justified. Chemistry deemed it
Impossible to concede the enormous elasticity of the æther without
depriving it of those properties, upon which its serviceableness
in the construction of chemical theories mainly depended.
This ended in a final transformation of Ether.
The exigencies of the atomo‐mechanical theory have led
distinguished mathematicians and physicists to attempt a
substitution for the traditional atoms of matter, of peculiar
forms of vortical motion in a universal, homogeneous,
incompressible, and _continuous_ material medium [Ether].(802)
The present writer—claiming no great scientific education, but only a
tolerable acquaintance with modern theories, and a better one with Occult
Sciences—picks up weapons against the detractors of the Esoteric Teaching
in the very arsenal of Modern Science. The glaring contradictions, the
mutually‐destructive hypotheses of world‐renowned Scientists, their
disputes, their accusations and denunciations of each other, show plainly
that, whether accepted or not, the Occult Theories have as much right to a
hearing as any of the so‐called learned and academical hypotheses. Thus,
whether the followers of the Royal Society choose to accept Ether as a
_continuous_ or as a _discontinuous_ fluid matters little, and is
indifferent for the present purpose. It simply points to one certainty:
Official Science _knows nothing to this day of the constitution of Ether_.
Let Science call it Matter, if it likes; only neither as Âkâsha, nor as
the one sacred Æther of the Greeks, is it to be found in any of the states
of Matter known to modern Physics. It is Matter on quite another plane of
perception and being, and it can neither be analyzed by scientific
apparatus, nor appreciated or even conceived by the “scientific
imagination,” unless the possessors thereof study the Occult Sciences.
That which follows proves this statement.
It is clearly demonstrated by Stallo as regards the crucial problems of
modern Physics, as was done by De Quatrefages and several others in those
of Anthropology, Biology, etc., that, in their efforts to support their
individual hypotheses and systems, most of the eminent and learned
Materialists very often utter the greatest fallacies. Let us take the
following case. Most of them reject _actio in distans_—one of the
fundamental principles in the question of Æther or Âkâsha in
Occultism—while, as Stallo justly observes, there is no physical action
“which, on close examination, does not resolve itself into _actio in
distans_”; and he proves it.
Now, metaphysical arguments, according to Professor Lodge,(803) are
“unconscious appeals to experience.” And he adds that if such an
experience _is not conceivable_, then it does not exist. In his own words:
If a highly‐developed mind or set of minds, find a doctrine about
some comparatively simple and fundamental matter absolutely
unthinkable, it is an evidence ... that the unthinkable state of
things has no existence.
And thereupon, toward the end of his lecture, the Professor indicates that
the explanation of cohesion, as well as of gravity, “is to be looked for
in the vortex‐atom theory of Sir William Thomson.”
It is needless to stop to inquire whether it is to this vortex‐atom
theory, also, that we have to look for the dropping down on earth of the
first life‐germ by a passing meteor or comet—Sir William Thomson’s
hypothesis. But Prof. Lodge might be reminded of the wise criticism on his
lecture in Stallo’s _Concepts of Modem Physics_. Noticing the above‐quoted
declaration by the Professor, the author asks
Whether ... the elements of the vortex‐atom theory are familiar,
or even possible, facts of experience? For, if they are not,
clearly that theory is obnoxious to the same criticism which is
said to invalidate the assumption of _actio in distans_.(804)
And then the able critic shows clearly what the Ether is not, nor can ever
be, notwithstanding all scientific claims to the contrary. And thus he
opens widely, if unconsciously, the entrance door to our Occult Teachings.
For, as he says:
The medium in which the vortex‐movements arise is, according to
Professor Lodge’s own express statement (_Nature_, vol. xxvii. p.
305), “a perfectly homogeneous, incompressible, continuous body,
incapable of being resolved into simple elements or atoms; it is,
in fact, continuous, not molecular.” And after making this
statement Professor Lodge adds: “_There is no other body of which
we can say this, and hence the properties of the æther must be
somewhat different from those of ordinary matter_.” It appears,
then, that the whole vortex‐atom theory, which is offered to us as
a substitute for the “metaphysical theory” of _actio in distans_,
rests upon the hypothesis of the existence of a material medium
which is utterly unknown to experience, and which has properties
_somewhat_ different(805) from those of ordinary matter. Hence
this theory, instead of being, as is claimed, a reduction of an
unfamiliar fact of experience to a familiar fact, is, on the
contrary, a reduction of a fact which is perfectly familiar, to a
fact which is not only unfamiliar, but wholly unknown, unobserved
and unobservable. Furthermore, the alleged vortical motion of, or
rather in, the assumed ethereal medium is ... _impossible_,
because “motion in a perfectly homogeneous, incompressible, and
therefore continuous fluid, is not sensible motion.”... It is
manifest, therefore ... that, wherever the vortex‐atom theory may
land us, it certainly does not land us anywhere in the region of
physics, or in the domain of _veræ causæ_.(806) And I may add
that, inasmuch as the hypothetical undifferentiated(807) and
undifferentiable medium is clearly an involuntary reïfication of
the old ontological concept _pure being_, the theory under
discussion has all the attributes of an inapprehensible
metaphysical phantom.(808)
A “phantom,” indeed, which can be made apprehensible only by Occultism.
From such scientific Metaphysics to Occultism there is hardly one step.
Those Physicists who hold the view that the atomic constitution of Matter
is consistent with its penetrability, need not go far out of their way to
be able to account for the greatest phenomena of Occultism, now so derided
by Physical Scientists and Materialists. Cauchy’s “material points without
extension” are Leibnitz’s Monads, and at the same time are the materials
out of which the “Gods” and other invisible Powers clothe themselves in
bodies. The disintegration and reïntegration of “material” particles
without extension, as a chief factor in phenomenal manifestations, ought
to suggest themselves very easily as a clear possibility, at any rate to
those few scientific minds which accept M. Cauchy’s views. For, disposing
of that property of Matter which they call impenetrability, by simply
regarding the Atoms as “material points exerting on each other attractions
and repulsions which vary with the distances that separate them,” the
French theorist explains that:
From this it follows that, if it pleased the author of nature
simply to modify the laws according to which the atoms attract or
repel each other, we might instantly see the hardest bodies
penetrating each other, the smallest particles of matter occupying
immense spaces, or the largest masses reducing themselves to the
smallest volumes, the entire universe concentrating itself, as it
were, in a single point.(809)
And that “point,” _invisible on our plane of perception and matter_, is
quite visible to the eye of the Adept who can follow and see it present on
other planes. For the Occultists, who say that the author of Nature _is
Nature itself_, something indistinct and inseparable from the Deity, it
follows that those who are conversant with the Occult laws of Nature, and
know how to change and provoke new conditions in Ether, may—_not_ modify
the laws, but work and do the same in accordance with these immutable
laws.