If there is anything like progress on earth, Science will some day have to
give up, _nolens volens_, such monstrous ideas as her physical, self‐
guiding laws, void of Soul and Spirit, and will then have to turn to the
Occult Teachings. It has already done so, however altered may be the
title‐pages and revised editions of the Scientific Catechism. It is now
over half a century since, in comparing modern with ancient thought, it
was found that, however different our Philosophy may appear from that of
our ancestors, it is, nevertheless, composed only of additions and
subtractions taken from the old Philosophy and transmitted drop by drop
through the filter of antecedents.
This fact was well known to Faraday, and to other eminent men of Science.
Atoms, Ether, Evolution itself—all come to Modern Science from ancient
notions, all are based on the conceptions of the archaic nations.
“Conceptions” for the profane, under the shape of allegories; plain truths
taught during the Initiations to the Elect, which truths have been
partially divulged through Greek writers and have descended to us. This
does not mean that Occultism has ever had the same views on Matter, Atoms
and Ether as may be found in the exotericism of the classical Greek
writers. Yet, if we may believe Mr. Tyndall, even Faraday was an
Aristotelean, and was more an Agnostic than a Materialist. In his
_Faraday, as a Discoverer_,(860) the author shows the great Physicist
using “old reflections of Aristotle” which are “concisely found in some of
his works.” Faraday, Boscovitch, and all others, however, who see, in the
Atoms and molecules, “centres of force,” and in the corresponding element,
Force, an Entity by itself, are far nearer the truth, perchance, than
those, who, denouncing them, denounce at the same time the “old
corpuscular Pythagorean theory”—one, by the way, which never passed to
posterity as the great Philosopher really taught it—on the ground of its
“delusion that the conceptual elements of matter can be grasped as
separate and real entities.”
The chief and most fatal mistake and fallacy made by Science, in the view
of the Occultists, lies in the idea of the possibility of such a thing
existing in Nature as inorganic, or dead Matter. Is anything dead or
inorganic which is capable of transformation or change?—Occultism asks.
And is there anything under the sun which remains immutable or changeless?
For a thing to be _dead_ implies that it had been at some time _living_.
When, at what period of cosmogony? Occultism says that in all cases Matter
is the most active, when it appears inert. A wooden or a stone block is
motionless and impenetrable to all intents and purposes. Nevertheless, and
_de facto_, its particles are in ceaseless eternal vibration which is so
rapid that to the physical eye the body seems absolutely devoid of motion;
and the spacial distance between those particles in their vibratory motion
is—considered from another plane of being and perception—as great as that
which separates snow flakes or drops of rain. But to Physical Science this
will be an absurdity.
This fallacy is nowhere better illustrated than in the scientific work of
a German _savant_, Professor Philip Spiller. In this cosmological
treatise, the author attempts to prove that:
No material constituent of a body, no atom, is in itself
originally endowed with force, but that every such atom is
absolutely dead, and without any inherent power to act at a
distance.(861)
This statement, however, does not prevent Spiller from enunciating an
Occult doctrine and principle. He asserts _the independent substantiality
of Force_, and shows it as an “incorporeal stuff” (_unkörperlicher Stoff_)
or Substance. Now _Substance_ is not _Matter_ in Metaphysics, and for
argument’s sake it may be granted that it is a wrong expression to use.
But this is due to the poverty of European languages, and especially to
the paucity of scientific terms. Then this “stuff” is identified and
connected by Spiller with the Æther. Expressed in Occult language it might
be said with more correctness that this “Force‐Substance” is the ever‐
active phenomenal positive Ether—Prakriti; while the omnipresent all‐
pervading Æther is the Noumenon of the former, the substratum of all, or
Âkâsha. Nevertheless, Stallo falls foul of Spiller, as he does of the
Materialists. He is accused of “utter disregard of the fundamental
correlation of Force and Matter,” of neither of which Science knows
anything certain. For this “hypostasized half‐concept” is, in the view of
all other Physicists, not only _imponderable_, but destitute of cohesive,
chemical, thermal, electric, and magnetic forces, of all of which
forces—according to Occultism—Æther is the Source and Cause.
Therefore Spiller, with all his mistakes, exhibits more intuition than
does any other modern Scientist, with the exception, perhaps, of Dr.
Richardson, the theorist on “Nerve‐Force,” or Nervous Ether, also on “Sun‐
Force and Earth‐Force.”(862) For Æther, in Esotericism, is the very
quintessence of all possible energy, and it is certainly to this Universal
Agent (composed of many agents) that are due all the manifestations of
energy in the material, psychic and spiritual worlds.
What, in fact, are electricity and light? How can Science know that one is
a fluid and the other a “mode of motion”? Why is no reason given why a
difference should be made between them, since both are considered as
force‐correlations? Electricity is a fluid, we are told, immaterial and
lion‐molecular—though Helmholtz thinks otherwise—and the proof of it is
that we can bottle it up, accumulate it and store it away. Then, it must
be simply Matter, and no peculiar “fluid.” Nor is it only “a mode of
motion,” for motion could hardly be stored in a Leyden jar. As for light,
it is a still more extraordinary “mode of motion”; since, “marvellous as
it may appear, light [also] can _actually be stored up for use_,” as was
demonstrated by Grove nearly half a century ago.
Take an engraving which has been kept for some days in the dark,
expose it to full sunshine—that is, insulate it for 15 minutes;
lay it on sensitive paper in a dark place, and at the end of 24
hours it will have left an impression of itself on the sensitive
paper, the whites coming out as blacks.... There seems to be no
limit for the reproduction of engravings.(863)
What is it that remains fixed, nailed, so to say, on the paper? It is a
Force certainly that fixed the thing, but what is _that thing_, the
residue of which remains on the paper?
Our learned men will get out of this by some scientific technicality; but
what is it that is intercepted, so as to imprison a certain quantity of it
on glass, paper, or wood? Is it “Motion” or is it “Force”? Or shall we be
told that what remains behind is only the effect of the Force or Motion?
Then what is this Force? Force or Energy is a quality; but every quality
must belong to a something, or a somebody. In Physics, Force is defined as
“that which changes or tends to change any physical relation between
bodies, whether mechanical, thermal, chemical, electrical, magnetic, etc.”
But it is not that Force or that Motion which remains behind on the paper,
when the Force or Motion has ceased to act; and yet something, which our
physical senses cannot perceive, has been left there, to become a cause in
its turn and to produce effects. What is it? It is not Matter, as defined
by Science—_i.e._, Matter in any of its known states. An Alchemist would
say it was a spiritual secretion—and he would be laughed at. But yet, when
the Physicist said that electricity, stored up, is a fluid, or that light
fixed on paper is still sunlight—that was _Science_. The newest
authorities have, indeed, rejected these explanations as “exploded
theories,” and have now deified “Motion” as their sole idol. But, surely,
they and their idol will one day share the fate of their predecessors! An
experienced Occultist, one who has verified the whole series of Nidânas,
of causes and effects, that finally project their last effect on to this
our plane of manifestations, one who has traced Matter back to its
Noumenon, holds the opinion that the explanation of the Physicist is like
calling anger, or its effects—the exclamation provoked by it—a secretion
or a fluid, and man, the cause of it, its _material_ conductor. But, as
Grove prophetically remarked, the day is fast approaching when it will be
confessed that the Forces we know are but the phenomenal manifestations of
Realities we know nothing about—but which were known to the Ancients, and
by them worshipped.
He made one still more suggestive remark which ought to have become the
motto of Science, but has not. Sir William Grove said that: “_Science
should have neither desires nor prejudices. Truth should be her sole
aim_.”
Meanwhile, in our days, Scientists are more self‐opinionated and bigoted
than even the Clergy. For they minister to, if they do not actually
worship, “Force‐Matter,” which is their _Unknown God_. And how unknown it
is, may be inferred from the many confessions of the most eminent
Physicists and Biologists, with Faraday at their head. Not only, he said,
could he never presume to pronounce whether Force was a property or
function of Matter, but he actually did not know what was meant by the
word Matter.
There was a time, he added, when he believed he knew something of Matter.
But the more he lived, and the more carefully he studied it, the more he
became convinced of his utter ignorance of the nature of Matter.(864)
This ominous confession was made, we believe, at a Scientific Congress at
Swansea. Faraday held a similar opinion, however, as stated by Tyndall:
What do we know of the atom apart from its force? You imagine a
nucleus which maybe called _a_ and surround it by forces which may
be called _m_; to my mind the _a_ or nucleus vanishes and the
substance consists of the powers _m_. And, indeed, what notion can
we form of the nucleus independent of its powers? What thought
remains on which to hang the imagination of an _a_ independent of
the acknowledged forces?
The Occultists are often misunderstood because, for lack of better terms,
they apply to the Essence of Force, _under certain aspects_, the
descriptive epithet of _Substance_. Now the names for the varieties of
Substance on different planes of perception and being are legion. Eastern
Occultism has a special appellation for each kind; but Science—like
England, in the recollection of a witty Frenchman, blessed with thirty‐six
religions and only one fish‐sauce—has but one name for all, namely
“Substance.” Moreover, neither the orthodox Physicists nor their critics
seem to be very certain of their premisses, and are as apt to confuse the
effects as they are the causes. It is incorrect, for instance, to say, as
Stallo does, that “Matter can no more be realized or conceived as mere
positive spatial presence than as a concretion of forces,” or that “Force
is nothing without mass, and mass is nothing without force”—for one is the
Noumenon and the other the phenomenon. Again; Schelling, when saying that
It is a mere delusion of the phantasy that something, we know not
what, remains after we have denuded an object of all the
predicates belonging to it,(865)
could never have applied the remark to the realm of transcendental
Metaphysics. It is true that pure Force is _nothing_ in the world of
Physics; it is All in the domain of Spirit. Says Stallo:
If we reduce the mass upon which a given force, however small,
acts to its limit zero—or, mathematically expressed, until it
becomes infinitely small—the consequence is that the velocity of
the resulting motion is infinitely great, and that the “thing” ...
is at any given moment neither here nor there, but everywhere—that
there is no real presence; it is impossible, therefore, to
construct matter by a synthesis of forces.(866)
This may be true in the phenomenal world, inasmuch as the illusive
reflection of the One Reality of the supersensual world may appear true to
the dwarfed conceptions of a Materialist. It is absolutely incorrect when
the argument is applied to things in what the Kabalists call the
supermundane spheres. Inertia, so‐called, is Force, according to
Newton,(867) and for the student of Esoteric Sciences the greatest of the
Occult Forces. A body can only conceptually, only on this plane of
illusion, be considered divorced from its relations with other
bodies—which, according to the physical and mechanical sciences, give rise
to its attributes. In fact, it can never be so detached; death itself
being unable to detach it from its relation with the Universal Forces, of
which the One Force, or Life, is the synthesis: the inter‐relation simply
continues on another plane. But what, if Stallo is right, can Dr. James
Croll mean when, in speaking “On the Transformation of Gravity,” he brings
forward the views advocated by Faraday, Waterston, and others? For he says
very plainly that gravity
Is a force pervading Space external to bodies, and that, on the
mutual approach of the bodies, the force is not increased, as is
generally supposed, but the bodies merely pass into a place where
the force exists with greater intensity.(868)
No one will deny that a Force, whether gravity, electricity, or any other
Force, which exists _outside_ bodies and in open Space—be it Ether or a
vacuum—must be _something_, and not a pure _nothing_, when conceived apart
from a mass. Otherwise it could hardly exist in one place with a greater
and in another with reduced “intensity.” G. A. Hirn declares the same in
his _Théorie Mécanique de l’Univers_. He tries to demonstrate:
That the atom of the chemists is not an entity of pure convention,
or simply an explicative device, but that it exists really, that
its volume is unalterable, and that consequently it is _not_
elastic [!!]. Force, therefore, is not in the atom; it is _in the
space_ which separates the atoms from each other.
The above‐cited views, expressed by two men of Science of great eminence
in their respective countries, show that it is not in the least
_unscientific_ to speak of the substantiality of the so‐called Forces.
Subject to some future specific name, this Force is Substance of some
kind, and can be nothing else; and perhaps one day Science will be the
first to reädopt the derided name of phlogiston. Whatever may be the
future name given to it, to maintain that Force does not reside in the
Atoms, but only in the “space between them,” may be scientific enough;
nevertheless it is not true. To the mind of an Occultist it is like saying
that water does not reside in the drops of which the ocean is composed,
but only in the space between those drops!
The objection that there are two distinct schools of Physicists, by one of
which
This force is assumed to be an independent substantial entity,
which is not a property of matter nor essentially related to
matter,(869)
is hardly likely to help the profane to any clearer understanding. It is,
on the contrary, more calculated to throw the question into still greater
confusion than ever. For Force is, then, neither this nor the other. By
viewing it as “an independent substantial entity,” the theory extends the
right hand of fellowship to Occultism, while the strange contradictory
idea that it is not “related to Matter otherwise than by its power to act
upon it,”(870) leads Physical Science to the most absurd contradictory
hypotheses. Whether “Force” or “Motion” (Occultism, seeing no difference
between the two, never attempts to separate them), it cannot act for the
adherents of the atomo‐mechanical theory in one way, and for those of the
rival school in another. Nor can the Atoms be, in one case, absolutely
uniform in size and weight, and in another, vary in their weight
(Avogadro’s law). For, in the words of the same able critic:
While the absolute equality of the primordial units of mass is
thus an essential part of the very foundations of the mechanical
theory, the whole modern science of chemistry is based upon a
principle directly subversive of it—a principle of which it has
recently been said that “it holds the same place in chemistry that
the law of gravitation does in astronomy.”(871) This principle is
known as the law of Avogadro or Ampère.(872)
This shows that either modern Chemistry, or modern Physics, is entirely
wrong in the respective fundamental principles. For if the assumption of
Atoms of different specific gravities is deemed absurd, on the basis of
the atomic theory in Physics; and if Chemistry, nevertheless, on this very
assumption, meets with “unfailing experimental verification,” in the
formation and transformation of chemical compounds; then it becomes
apparent that it is the atomo‐mechanical theory which is untenable. The
explanation of the latter, that “the differences of weight are only
differences of density, and differences of density are differences of
distance between the particles contained in a given space,” is not really
valid, because, before a Physicist can argue in his defence that “as in
the atom there is no multiplicity of particles and no void space, hence
differences of density or weight are impossible in the case of atoms,” he
must first know what an Atom is, in reality, and that is just what he
cannot know. He must bring it under the observation of at least one of his
physical senses—and that he cannot do: for the simple reason that no one
has ever seen, smelt, heard, touched or tasted an Atom. The Atom belongs
wholly to the domain of Metaphysics. It is an entified abstraction—at any
rate for Physical Science—and has nought to do with Physics, strictly
speaking, as it can never be brought to the test of retort or balance. The
mechanical conception, therefore, becomes a jumble of the most conflicting
theories and dilemmas, in the minds of the many Scientists who disagree on
this, as on other subjects; and its evolution is beheld with the greatest
bewilderment by the Eastern Occultist, who follows this scientific strife.
To conclude, on the question of gravity. How can Science presume to know
anything certain of it? How can it maintain its position and its
hypotheses against those of the Occultists, who see in gravity only
sympathy and antipathy, or attraction and repulsion, caused by physical
polarity on our terrestrial plane, and by spiritual causes outside its
influence? How can they disagree with the Occultists before they agree
among themselves? Indeed one hears of the Conservation of Energy, and in
the same breath of the perfect hardness and inelasticity of the Atoms; of
the kinetic theory of gases being identical with “potential energy,” so
called, and, at the same time, of the elementary units of mass being
absolutely hard and inelastic! An Occultist opens a scientific work and
reads as follows:
Physical atomism derives all the qualitative properties of matter
from the forms of atomic motion. The _atoms themselves remain as
elements utterly devoid of quality_.(873)
And further:
Chemistry in its ultimate form must be atomic mechanics.(874)
And a moment after he is told that:
Gases consist of atoms which behave like solid, _perfectly
elastic_ spheres.(875)
Finally, to crown all, Sir W. Thomson is found declaring that:
We are forbidden by the modern theory of the conservation of
energy to assume inelasticity, or anything short of perfect
elasticity of the ultimate molecules whether of ultra‐mundane or
mundane matter.(876)
But what do the men of true Science say to all this? By the “men of true
Science” we mean those who care too much for truth and too little for
personal vanity to dogmatize on anything, as do the majority. There are
several among them—perhaps more than dare openly publish their secret
conclusions, for fear of the cry “Stone him to death!”—men, whose
intuitions have made them span the abyss that lies between the terrestrial
aspect of Matter, and the, to us, on our plane of illusion, subjective,
_i.e._, transcendentally objective Substance, and have led them to
proclaim the existence of the latter. Matter, to the Occultist, it must be
remembered, is that totality of existences in the Kosmos, which falls
within any of the planes of possible perception. We are but too well aware
that the orthodox theories of sound, heat and light, are against the
Occult Doctrines. But, it is not enough for the men of Science, or their
defenders, to say that they do not deny dynamic power to light and heat,
and to urge, as a proof, the fact that Mr. Crookes’ radiometer has
unsettled no views. If they would fathom the ultimate nature of these
Forces, they have first to admit their _substantial_ nature, however
_supersensuous_ that nature may be. Neither do the Occultists deny the
correctness of the vibratory theory.(877) Only they limit its functions to
our Earth—declaring its inadequacy on other planes than ours, since
Masters in the Occult Sciences perceive the Causes that produce ethereal
vibrations. Were all these only the fictions of the Alchemists, or dreams
of the Mystics, such men as Paracelsus, Philalethes, Van Helmont, and so
many others, would have to be regarded as worse than visionaries; they
would become impostors and deliberate mystificators.
The Occultists are taken to task for calling the Cause of light, heat,
sound, cohesion, magnetism, etc., etc., a Substance.(878) Mr. Clerk
Maxwell has stated that the pressure of strong sunlight on a square mile
is about 3‐¼ lbs. It is, they are told, “the energy of the myriad ether
waves”; and when they call it a Substance impinging on that area, their
explanation is proclaimed unscientific.
There is no justification for such an accusation. In no way—as already
more than once stated—do the Occultists dispute the explanations of
Science, as affording a solution of the immediate objective agencies at
work. Science only errs in believing that, because it has detected in
vibratory waves the _proximate_ cause of these phenomena, it has,
therefore, revealed _all_ that lies beyond the threshold of Sense. It
merely traces the sequence of phenomena on a plane of effects, illusory
projections from the region that Occultism has long since penetrated. And
the latter maintains that those etheric tremors are not set up, as
asserted by Science, by the vibrations of the molecules of known bodies,
the Matter of our terrestrial objective consciousness, but that we must
seek for the ultimate Causes of light, heat, etc., in Matter existing in
supersensuous states—states, however, as fully objective to the spiritual
eye of man, as a horse or a tree is to the ordinary mortal. Light and heat
are the ghost or shadow of Matter in motion. Such states can be perceived
by the Seer or the Adept during the hours of trance, under the Sushumnâ
Ray—the first of the Seven Mystic Rays of the Sun.(879)
Thus, we put forward the Occult teaching which maintains the reality of a
supersubstantial and supersensible essence of that Âkâsha—not Ether, which
is only an aspect of the latter—the nature of which cannot be inferred
from its remoter manifestations, its merely phenomenal phalanx of effects,
on this terrene plane. Science, on the contrary, informs us that heat can
never be regarded as Matter in any conceivable state. To cite a most
impartial critic, one whose authority no one can call in question, as a
reminder to Western dogmatists, that the question cannot be in any way
considered as settled:
There is no fundamental difference between light and heat ... each
is merely a metamorphosis of the other.... Heat is light in
complete repose. Light is heat in rapid motion. Directly light is
combined with a body, it becomes heat; but when it is thrown off
from that body it again becomes light.(880)
Whether this is true or false we cannot tell, and many years, perhaps many
generations, will have to elapse before we shall be able to tell.(881) We
are also told that the two great obstacles to the fluid (?) theory of heat
undoubtedly are:
(1) The production of heat by friction—excitation of molecular motion.
(2) The conversion of heat into mechanical motion.
The answer given is: There are fluids of various kinds. Electricity is
called a fluid, and so was heat quite recently, but it was on the
supposition that heat was some imponderable substance. This was during the
supreme and autocratic reign of Matter. When Matter was dethroned, and
Motion was proclaimed the sole sovereign ruler of the Universe, heat
became a “mode of motion.” We need not despair; it may become something
else to‐morrow. Like the Universe itself, Science is ever becoming, and
can never say, “I am that I am.” On the other hand, Occult Science has its
changeless traditions from prehistoric times. It may err in particulars;
it can never become guilty of a mistake in questions of Universal Law,
simply because that Science, justly referred to by Philosophy as the
Divine, was born on higher planes, and was brought to Earth by Beings who
were wiser than man will be, even in the Seventh Race of his Seventh
Round. And _that_ Science maintains that Forces are not what modern
learning would have them; _e.g._, magnetism is not a “mode of motion”;
and, in this particular case, at least, exact Modern Science is sure to
come to grief some day. Nothing, at the first blush, can appear more
ridiculous, more outrageously absurd than to say, for instance: The Hindû
initiated Yogî knows really ten times more than the greatest European
Physicist of the ultimate nature and constitution of light, both solar and
lunar. Yet why is the Sushumnâ Ray believed to be that Ray which furnishes
the Moon with its borrowed light? Why is it “the Ray cherished by the
initiated Yogî”? Why is the Moon considered as the Deity of the Mind, by
those Yogîs? We say, because light, or rather all its Occult properties,
every combination and correlation of it with other forces, mental,
psychic, and spiritual, was perfectly known to the old Adepts.
Therefore, although Occult Science may be less well‐informed than modern
Chemistry as to the behaviour of compound elements in various cases of
physical correlation, yet it is immeasurably higher in its knowledge of
the ultimate Occult states of Matter, and of the true nature of Matter,
than all the Physicists and Chemists of our modern day put together.
Now, if we state the truth openly and in full sincerity, namely, that the
ancient Initiates had a far wider knowledge of Physics, as a Science of
Nature, than is possessed by our Academies of Science, all taken together,
the statement will be characterized as an impertinence and an absurdity;
for Physical Sciences are considered to have been carried in our age to
the apex of perfection. Hence, the twitting query: Can the Occultists meet
successfully the two points, namely (_a_) the production of heat by
friction—excitation of molecular motion; and (_b_) the conversion of heat
into mechanical force, if they hold to the old exploded theory of heat
being a substance or a fluid?
To answer the question, it must first be observed that the Occult Sciences
do not regard either electricity, or any of the Forces supposed to be
generated by it, as Matter in any of the states known to Physical Science;
to put it more clearly, none of these Forces, so‐called, is a solid, gas,
or fluid. If it did not look pedantic, an Occultist would even object to
electricity being called a fluid—as it is an effect and not a cause. But
its Noumenon, he would say, is a Conscious Cause. The same in the cases of
“Force” and the “Atom.” Let us see what an eminent Academician, Butlerof,
the Chemist, had to say about these two abstractions. This great man of
Science argues:
What is Force? What is it from a strictly scientific stand‐point,
and as warranted by the law of conservation of energy? Conceptions
of Force are resumed by our conceptions of this, that, or another
mode of motion. Force is thus simply the passage of one state of
motion into another state of the same; of electricity into heat
and light, of heat into sound or some mechanical function, and so
on.(882) The first time electric fluid was produced by man on
earth it must have been by friction; hence, as well known, it is
heat that produces it by disturbing its zero state,(883) and
electricity exists no more on earth _per se_ than heat or light,
or any other force. They are all correlations, as Science says.
When a given quantity of heat, assisted by a steam engine, is
transformed into mechanical work, we speak of steam power (or
force). When a falling body strikes an obstacle in its way,
thereby generating heat and sound—we call it the power of
collision. When electricity decomposes water or heats a platinum
wire, we speak of the force of the electric fluid. When the rays
of the sun are intercepted by the thermometer bulb and its
quicksilver expands, we speak of the calorific energy of the sun.
In short, when one state of a determined quantity of motion
ceases, another state of motion equivalent to the preceding takes
its place, and the result of such a transformation or correlation
is—Force. In all cases where such a transformation, or the passage
of one state of motion into another, is entirely absent, there no
force is possible. Let us admit for a moment an absolutely
homogeneous state of the Universe, and our conception of Force
falls down to nought.
Therefore it becomes evident that the Force, which Materialism
considers as the cause of the diversity that surrounds us, is in
sober reality only an effect, a result of that diversity. From
such point of view Force is not the cause of motion, but a result,
while the cause of that Force, or forces, is not the Substance or
Matter, but Motion itself. Matter thus must be laid aside, and
with it the basic principle of Materialism, which has become
unnecessary, as Force brought down to a state of motion can give
no idea of the Substance. If Force is the result of motion, then
it becomes incomprehensible why that motion should become witness
to Matter and not to Spirit or a Spiritual essence. True, our
reason cannot conceive of a motion minus something moving (and our
reason is right); but the nature or _esse_ of that something
moving remains to Science entirely unknown; and the Spiritualist,
in such case, has as much right to attribute it to a “Spirit,” as
a Materialist to creative and all‐potential Matter. A Materialist
has no special privileges in this instance, nor can he claim any.
The law of the conservation of energy, as thus seen, is shown to
be illegitimate in its pretensions and claims in this case. The
“great dogma”—_no force without matter and no matter without
force_—falls to the ground, and loses entirely the solemn
significance with which Materialism has tried to invest it. The
conception of Force still gives no idea of Matter, and compels us
in no way to see in it “the origin of all origins.”(884)
We are assured that Modern Science is not Materialistic; and our own
conviction tells us that it cannot be so, when its learning is real. There
is good reason for this, well defined by some Physicists and Chemists
themselves. Natural Sciences cannot go hand in hand with Materialism. To
be at the height of their calling, men of Science have to reject the very
possibility of Materialistic doctrines having aught to do with the Atomic
Theory; and we find that Lange, Butlerof, Du Bois Reymond—the last
probably unconsciously—and several others, have proved it. And this is,
furthermore, demonstrated by the fact, that Kanâda in India, and Leucippus
and Democritus in Greece, and after them Epicurus—the earliest Atomists in
Europe—while propagating their doctrine of definite proportions, believed
in Gods or supersensuous Entities, at the same time. Their ideas upon
Matter thus differed from those now prevalent. We must be allowed to make
our statement clearer by a short synopsis of the ancient and modern views
of Philosophy upon Atoms, and thus prove that the Atomic Theory kills
Materialism.
From the standpoint of Materialism, which reduces the beginnings of all to
Matter, the Universe consists, in its fulness, of Atoms and vacuity. Even
leaving aside the axiom taught by the Ancients, and now absolutely
demonstrated by telescope and microscope, that Nature abhors a vacuum,
what is an Atom? Professor Butlerof writes:
It is, we are answered by Science, the limited division of
Substance, the indivisible particle of Matter. To admit the
divisibility of the atom, amounts to an admission of an infinite
divisibility of Substance, which is equivalent to reducing
Substance to _nihil_, or nothingness. Owing to a feeling of self‐
preservation alone, Materialism cannot admit infinite
divisibility; otherwise, it would have to bid farewell for ever to
its basic principle and thus sign its own death‐warrant.(885)
Büchner, for instance, like a true dogmatist in Materialism declares that:
To accept infinite divisibility is absurd, and amounts to doubting
the very existence of Matter.
The Atom is indivisible then, saith Materialism? Very well. Butlerof
answers:
See now what a curious contradiction this fundamental principle of
the Materialists is leading them into. The atom is _indivisible_,
and at the same time we know it to be _elastic_. An attempt to
deprive it of elasticity is unthinkable; it would amount to an
absurdity. Absolutely non‐elastic atoms could never exhibit a
single one of those numerous phenomena that are attributed to
their correlations. Without any elasticity, the atoms could not
manifest their energy, and the Substance of the Materialists would
remain weeded of every force. Therefore, if the Universe is
composed of atoms, then those atoms must be elastic. It is here
that we meet with an insuperable obstacle. For, what are the
conditions requisite for the manifestation of elasticity? An
elastic ball, when striking against an obstacle, is flattened and
contracts, which it would be impossible for it to do, were not
that ball to consist of particles, the relative position of which
experiences at the time of the blow a temporary change. This may
be said of elasticity in general; no elasticity is possible
without change with respect to the position of the compound
particles of an elastic body. This means that the elastic body is
changeful and consists of particles, or, in other words, that
elasticity can pertain only to those bodies that are divisible.
And the atom _is_ elastic.(886)
This is sufficient to show how absurd are the simultaneous admissions of
the non‐divisibility and of the elasticity of the Atom. The Atom is
elastic, _ergo_, the Atom is divisible, and must consist of particles, or
of sub‐atoms. And these sub‐atoms? They are either non‐elastic, and in
such case they represent no dynamic importance, or, they are elastic also;
and in that case, they, too, are subject to divisibility. And thus _ad
infinitum_. But infinite divisibility of Atoms resolves Matter into simple
centres of Force, _i.e._, precludes the possibility of conceiving Matter
as an objective substance.
This vicious circle is fatal to Materialism. It finds itself caught in its
own nets, and no issue out of the dilemma is possible for it. If it says
that the Atom is indivisible, then it will have Mechanics asking it the
awkward question:
How does the Universe move in this case, and how do its forces
correlate? A world built on absolutely non‐elastic atoms, is like
an engine without steam, it is doomed to eternal inertia.(887)
Accept the explanations and teachings of Occultism, and—the blind inertia
of Physical Science being replaced by the intelligent active Powers behind
the veil of Matter—motion and inertia become subservient to those Powers.
It is on the doctrine of the illusive nature of Matter, and the infinite
divisibility of the Atom, that the whole Science of Occultism is built. It
opens limitless horizons to Substance, informed by the divine breath of
its Soul in every possible state of tenuity, states still undreamed of by
the most spiritually disposed Chemists and Physicists.
The above views were enunciated by an Academician, the greatest Chemist in
Russia, and a recognized authority even in Europe, the late Professor
Butlerof. True, he was defending the phenomena of the Spiritualists, the
materializations, so‐called, in which he believed, as Professors Zöllner
and Hare did, as Mr. A. Russel Wallace, Mr. W. Crookes, and many another
Fellow of the Royal Society, do still, whether openly or secretly. But his
argument with regard to the nature of the Essence that acts behind the
physical phenomena of light, heat, electricity, etc., is no less
scientific and authoritative for all that, and applies admirably to the
case in hand. Science has no right to deny to the Occultists their claim
to a more profound knowledge of the so‐called Forces, which, they say, are
only the effects of causes generated by Powers, substantial, yet
supersensuous, and beyond any kind of Matter with which Scientists have
hitherto become acquainted. The most Science can do is to assume and to
maintain the attitude of Agnosticism. Then it can say: Your case is no
more proven than is ours; but we confess to knowing nothing in reality
either about Force or Matter, or about that which lies at the bottom of
the so‐called correlation of Forces. Therefore, time alone can prove who
is right and who is wrong. Let us wait patiently, and meanwhile show
mutual courtesy, instead of scoffing at each other.
But to do this requires a boundless love of truth and the surrender of
that prestige—however false—of infallibility, which the men of Science
have acquired among the ignorant and flippant, though cultured, masses of
the profane. The blending of the two Sciences, the Archaic and the Modern,
requires first of all the abandonment of the actual Materialistic lines.
It necessitates a kind of religious Mysticism and even the study of old
Magic, which our Academicians will never take up. The necessity is easily
explained. Just as in old Alchemical works the real meaning of the
Substances and Elements mentioned is concealed under the most ridiculous
metaphors, so are the physical, psychic, and spiritual natures of the
Elements (say of Fire) concealed in the _Vedas_;, and especially in the
_Purânas_, under allegories comprehensible only to the Initiates. Had they
no meaning, then indeed all these long legends and allegories about the
sacredness of the three types of Fire, and the _Forty‐Nine original
Fires_—personified by the Sons of Daksha’s Daughters and the Rishis, their
Husbands, “who with the first Son of Brahmâ and his three descendants
constitute the Forty‐nine Fires”—would be idiotic verbiage and no more.
But it is not so. Every Fire has a distinct function and meaning in the
worlds of the physical and the spiritual. It has, moreover, in its
essential nature a corresponding relation to one of the human psychic
faculties, besides its well determined chemical and physical potencies
when coming in contact with terrestrially differentiated Matter. Science
has no speculations to offer upon Fire _per se_; Occultism and ancient
religious Science have. This is shown even in the meagre and purposely
veiled phraseology of the _Purânas_, where, as in the _Vâyu Purâna_, many
of the qualities of the personified Fires are explained. Thus, Pâvaka is
Electric Fire, or Vaidyuta; Pavamâna, the Fire produced by Friction, or
Nirmathya: and Shuchi is Solar Fire, or Saura(888)—all these three being
the sons of Abhimânin, the Agni (Fire), eldest son of Brahmâ and of Svâhâ.
Pâvaka, moreover, is made parent to Kavyavâhana, the Fire of the Pitris:
Shuchi to Havyaváhana, the Fire of the Gods; and Pavamâna to Saharaksha,
the Fire of the Asuras. Now all this shows that the writers of the
_Purânas_ were perfectly conversant with the Forces of Science and their
correlations, as well as with the various qualities of the latter in their
bearing upon those psychic and physical phenomena which receive no credit
and are now unknown to Physical Science. Very naturally, when an
Orientalist, especially one with materialistic tendencies, reads that
these are only appellations of Fire employed in the invocations and
rituals, he calls this “Tântrika superstition and mystification”; and he
becomes more careful to avoid errors in spelling than to give attention to
the secret meaning attached to the personifications, or to seek their
explanation in the physical correlations of Forces, so far as these are
known. So little credit, indeed, is given to the ancient Âryans for
knowledge, that even such glaring passages as that in _Vishnu Purâna_, are
left without any notice. Nevertheless, what can this sentence mean?
Then ether, air, light, water, and earth, severally united with
the properties of sound and the rest, existed as distinguishable
according to their qualities, ... but, possessing many and various
energies and being unconnected, they could not, without
combination, create living beings, not having blended with each
other. Having combined therefore with one another, they assumed
through their mutual association, the character of one mass of
entire unity; and, from the direction of Spirit, etc.(889)
This means, of course, that the writers were perfectly acquainted with
correlation, and were well posted about the origin of Kosmos from the
“Indiscrete Principle,” Avyaktânugrahena, as applied to Parabrahman and
Mûlaprakriti conjointly, and not to “Avyakta, either First Cause, or
Matter,” as Wilson gives it. The old Initiates knew of no “miraculous
creation,” but taught the evolution of Atoms, on our physical plane, and
their first differentiation from Laya into Protyle, as Mr. Crookes has
suggestively named Matter, or primordial substance, _beyond_ the zero‐
line—there where we place Mûlaprakriti, the Root‐Principle of the World‐
Stuff and of all in the World.
This can be easily demonstrated. Take, for instance, the newly‐published
catechism of the Vishishthâdvaita Vedântins, an orthodox and exoteric
system, yet fully enunciated and taught in the XIth century(890) at a time
when European “Science” still believed in the squareness and flatness of
the Earth of Cosmas Indicopleustes of the VIth century. It teaches that
before Evolution began, Prakriti, Nature, was in a condition of Laya, or
of absolute homogeneity, as “Matter exists in two conditions, the Sûkshma,
or latent and undifferentiated, and the Sthûla, or differentiated,
condition.” Then it became Anu, atomic. It teaches of Suddasattva—“a
substance not subject to the qualities of Matter, from which it is quite
different,” and adds that out of that Substance the bodies of the Gods,
the inhabitants of Vaikunthaloka, the Heaven of Vishnu, are formed. That
every particle or atom of Prakriti contains Jîva (divine life), and is the
Sharîra (body) of that Jîva which it contains, while every Jîva is in its
turn the Sharîra of the Supreme Spirit, as “Parabrahman pervades every
Jîva, as well as every particle of Matter.” Dualistic and anthropomorphic
as may be the philosophy of the Vishishthâdvaita, when compared with that
of the Advaita—the non‐dualists—it is yet supremely higher in logic and
philosophy than the Cosmogony accepted either by Christianity or by its
great opponent, Modern Science. The followers of one of the greatest minds
that ever appeared on Earth, the Advaita Vedântins are called Atheists,
because they regard all save Parabrahman, the Secondless, or the Absolute
Reality as an illusion. Yet the wisest Initiates came from their ranks, as
also the greatest Yogîs. The _Upanishads_ show that they most assuredly
knew not only what is the causal substance in the effects of friction, and
that their forefathers were acquainted with the conversion of heat into
mechanical force, but that they were also acquainted with the Noumenon of
every spiritual as well as of every cosmic phenomenon.
Truly the young Brâhman who graduates in the Universities and Colleges of
India with the highest honours; who starts in life as an M.A. and an
LL.B., with a tail initialed from Alpha to Omega after his name, and a
contempt for his national Gods proportioned to the honours received in his
education in Physical Science; truly he has but to read in the light of
the latter, and with an eye to the correlation of physical Forces, certain
passages in his _Purânas_, if he would learn how much more his ancestors
knew than he will ever know—unless he becomes an Occultist. Let him turn
to the allegory of Purûravas and the celestial Gandharva,(891) who
furnished the former with a vessel full of heavenly fire. The primeval
mode of obtaining fire by friction has its scientific explanation in the
_Vedas_, and is pregnant with meaning for him who reads between the lines.
The Tretâgni (sacred triad of fires) obtained by the attrition of sticks
made of the wood of the Ashvattha tree, the Bo‐tree of Wisdom and
Knowledge, sticks “as many finger‐breadths long as there are syllables in
the Gâyatrî,” must have a secret meaning, or else the writers of the
_Vedas_ and _Purânas_ were no sacred writers but mystificators. That it
has such a meaning, the Hindu Occultists are a proof, and they alone are
able to enlighten Science, as to why and how the Fire, that was primevally
One, was made three‐fold (tretâ) in our present Manvantara, by the Son of
Ilâ (Vâch), the Primeval Woman after the Deluge, the wife and daughter of
Vaivasvata Manu. The allegory is suggestive, in whatever _Purâna_ it may
be read and studied.