Modern Nebular Theory.
Of late, Esoteric Cosmogony has been frequently opposed by the phantom of
this theory and its ensuing hypotheses. “Can this most scientific teaching
be denied by your Adepts?” it is asked. “Not entirely,” is the reply, “but
the admissions of the men of Science themselves _kill_ it; and there
remains nothing for the Adepts to deny.”
To make of Science an integral _whole_ necessitates, indeed, the study of
spiritual and psychic, as well as of physical, Nature. Otherwise it will
ever be like the anatomy of man, discussed of old by the profane from the
point of view of his shell‐side, and in ignorance of the interior work.
Even Plato, the greatest Philosopher of his country, was guilty, before
his Initiation, of such statements as that liquids pass into the stomach
through the lungs. Without metaphysics, as Mr. H. J. Slack says, _real_
Science is inadmissible.
The nebulæ exist; yet the Nebular Theory is wrong. A nebula exists in a
state of entire elemental dissociation. It is gaseous and—something else
besides, which can hardly be connected with gases as these are known to
Physical Science; and it is self‐luminous. But that is all. The sixty‐two
“coincidences” enumerated by Professor Stephen Alexander,(1012) confirming
the Nebular Theory, may all be explained by Esoteric Science; though, as
this is not an astronomical work, the refutations are not attempted at
present. Laplace and Faye come nearer to the correct theory than any; but
of the speculations of Laplace there remains little in the present theory
beyond its general features.
Nevertheless, says John Stuart Mill:
There is in Laplace’s theory nothing hypothetical; it is an
example of legitimate reasoning from present effect to its past
cause; it assumes nothing more than that objects which really
exist obey the laws which are known to be obeyed by all
terrestrial objects resembling them.(1013)
From such an eminent logician as was Mill, this would be valuable, if it
could only be proved that “terrestrial objects resembling” celestial
objects at such a distance as are the nebulæ, _resemble those objects in
reality, and not only in appearance_.
Another of the fallacies, from the Occult standpoint, embodied in the
modern theory as it now stands, is the hypothesis that the Planets were
all detached from the Sun; that they are bone of his bone, and flesh of
his flesh; whereas the Sun and the Planets are only co‐uterine brothers,
having the same nebular origin, but in a different mode from that
postulated by modern Astronomy.
The many objections raised by some opponents of the modern Nebular Theory
against the homogeneity of original diffuse Matter, on the ground of the
uniformity in the composition of the fixed Stars, do not affect the
question of that homogeneity at all, but only the theory itself. Our solar
nebula may not be completely homogeneous, or, rather, it may fail to
reveal itself as such to the Astronomers, and yet be _de facto_
homogeneous. The Stars do differ in their constituent materials, and even
exhibit elements quite unknown on Earth; nevertheless, this does not
affect the point that Primeval Matter—Matter as it appeared even in its
first differentiation from its laya‐condition(1014)—is yet to this day
homogeneous, at immense distances, in the depths of infinitude, and
likewise at points not far removed from the outskirts of our Solar System.
Finally, there does not exist one single fact brought forward by the
learned objectors against the Nebular Theory (false as it is, and hence,
illogically enough, fatal to the hypothesis of the homogeneity of Matter),
that can withstand criticism. One error leads to another. A false premiss
will naturally lead to a false conclusion, although an inadmissible
inference does not necessarily affect the validity of the major
proposition of the syllogism. Thus, one may leave every side‐issue and
inference from the evidence of spectra and lines, as simply provisional
for the present, and abandon all matters of detail to Physical Science.
The duty of the Occultist lies with the _Soul_ and _Spirit_ of Cosmic
Space, not merely with its illusive appearance and behaviour. That of
official Physical Science is to analyze and study its _shell_—the Ultima
Thule of the Universe and Man, in the opinion of Materialism.
With the latter, Occultism has nought to do. It is only with the theories
of such men of learning as Kepler, Kant, Oersted, and Sir William
Herschell, who believed in a Spiritual World, that Occult Cosmogony might
treat, and attempt a satisfactory compromise. But the views of those
Physicists differed vastly from the latest modern speculations. Kant and
Herschell had in their mind’s eye speculations upon the origin and the
final destiny, as well as upon the present aspect, of the Universe, from a
far more philosophical and psychic standpoint; whereas modern Cosmology
and Astronomy now repudiate anything like research into the mysteries of
Being. The result is what might be expected: complete failure and
inextricable contradictions in the thousand and one varieties of so‐called
Scientific Theories, and in this Theory as in all others.
The nebular hypothesis, involving the theory of the existence of a
Primeval Matter, diffused in a nebulous condition, is of no modern date in
Astronomy, as everyone knows. Anaximenes, of the Ionian school, had
already taught that the sidereal bodies were formed through the
progressive condensation of a primordial _pregenetic_ Matter, which had
almost a negative weight, and was spread out through Space in an extremely
sublimated condition.
Tycho Brahé, who viewed the Milky Way as an ethereal substance, thought
the new star that appeared in Cassiopeia, in 1572, had been formed out of
that Matter.(1015) Kepler believed that the star of 1606 had likewise been
formed out of the ethereal substance that fills the universe.(1016) He
attributed to that same Ether the apparition of a luminous ring round the
Moon, during the total eclipse of the Sun observed at Naples in
1605.(1017) Still later, in 1714 the existence of a self‐luminous Matter
was recognized by Halley in the _Philosophical Transactions_. Finally, the
journal of this name published in 1811 the famous hypothesis of the
eminent Astronomer, Sir William Herschell, on the transformation of the
nebulæ into Stars,(1018) and after this the Nebular Theory was accepted by
the Royal Academies.
In _Five Years of Theosophy_, on p. 245, may be read an article headed,
“Do the Adepts deny the Nebular Theory?” The answer there given is:
_No; they do not deny its general propositions, nor the approximative
truth of the scientific hypotheses. They only deny the completeness of the
present, as well as the entire error of the many so‐called
__“__exploded__”__ old theories, which, during the last century, have
followed each other in such rapid succession._
This was asserted at the time to be “an evasive answer.” Such disrespect
to official Science, it was argued, must be justified by the replacement
of the _orthodox_ speculation by another theory more complete, and having
a firmer ground to stand upon. To this there is but one reply: It is
useless to give out isolated theories with regard to things embodied in a
complete and consecutive system, for, when separated from the main body of
the teaching, they would necessarily lose their vital coherence and would
thus do no good when studied independently. To be able to appreciate and
accept the Occult views on the Nebular Theory, we must study the whole
Esoteric cosmogonical system. And the time has hardly arrived for the
Astronomers to be asked to accept Fohat and the Divine Builders. Even the
undeniably correct surmises of Sir William Herschell, which had nothing
“supernatural” in them, as to the Sun’s being called a “globe of fire,”
perhaps metaphorically, and his early speculations about the nature of
that which is now called the Nasmyth Willow‐leaf Theory, only caused that
most eminent of all Astronomers to be smiled at by other, far less
eminent, colleagues, who saw and now see in his ideas purely “imaginative
and fanciful theories.” Before the whole Esoteric System could be given
out and appreciated by the Astronomers, the latter would have to return to
some of those “antiquated ideas,” not only to those of Herschell, but also
to the dreams of the oldest Hindû Astronomers, and thus abandon their own
theories, which are none the less “fanciful” because they have appeared
nearly eighty years later than the one, and many thousands of years later
than the others. Foremost of all they would have to repudiate their ideas
of the Sun’s solidity and incandescence; the Sun “glowing” most
undeniably, but not “burning.” Then the Occultists state, with regard to
the “willow‐leaves,” that those “objects,” as Sir William Herschell called
them, are the immediate sources of the solar light and heat. And though
the Esoteric Teaching does not regard these as he did—namely, as
“organisms” partaking of the nature of life, for the Solar “Beings” will
hardly place themselves within telescopic focus—yet it asserts that the
whole Universe is full of such “organisms,” conscious and active according
to the proximity or distance of their planes to, or from, our plane of
consciousness; and finally that the great Astronomer was right while
speculating on those supposed “organisms,” in saying that “we do not know
that vital action is incompetent to develop at once heat, light, and
electricity.” For, at the risk of being laughed at by the whole world of
Physicists, the Occultists maintain that all the “Forces” of the
Scientists have their origin in the Vital Principle, the One Life
collectively of our Solar System—that “Life” being a portion, or rather
one of the _aspects_, of the One Universal LIFE.
We may, therefore—as in the article under consideration, wherein, on the
authority of the Adepts, it was maintained that it is “sufficient to make
a _résumé_ of what the solar Physicists do not know”—we may, we maintain,
define our position with regard to the modern Nebular Theory and its
evident incorrectness, by simply pointing out facts diametrically opposed
to it in its present form. And to begin with, what does it teach?
Summarizing the aforesaid hypotheses, it becomes plain that Laplace’s
theory—now made quite unrecognizable, moreover—was an unfortunate one. He
postulates in the first place Cosmic Matter, existing in a state of
diffuse nebulosity “so fine that its presence could hardly have been
suspected.” No attempt is made by him to penetrate into the Arcana of
Being, except as regards the immediate evolution of our small Solar
System.
Consequently, whether one accepts or rejects his theory in its bearing
upon the immediate cosmological problems presented for solution, he can
only be said to have thrown back the mystery a little further. To the
eternal query: “Whence Matter itself; whence the evolutionary impetus
determining its cyclic aggregations and dissolutions; whence the exquisite
symmetry and order into which the primeval Atoms arrange and group
themselves?” no answer is attempted by Laplace. All we are confronted
with, is a sketch of the _probable_ broad principles on which the actual
process is assumed to be based. Well, and what is this now celebrated note
on the said process? What has he given so wonderfully new and original,
that its ground‐work, at any rate, should have served as a basis for the
modern Nebular Theory? The following is what one gathers from various
astronomical works.
Laplace thought that, in consequence of the condensation of the atoms of
the primeval nebula, according to the “law” of gravity, the now gaseous,
or perhaps, partially liquid mass, acquired a rotatory motion. As the
velocity of this rotation increased, it assumed the form of a thin disc;
finally, the centrifugal force overpowering that of cohesion, huge rings
were detached from the edge of the whirling incandescent masses, and these
rings contracted necessarily by gravitation (as accepted) into spheroidal
bodies, which would necessarily still continue to preserve the orbit
previously occupied by the outer zone from which they were
separated.(1019) The velocity of the outer edge of each nascent planet, he
said, exceeding that of the inner, there results a rotation on its axis.
The more dense bodies would be thrown off last; and finally, during the
preliminary state of their formation, the newly‐segregated orbs in their
turn throw off one or more satellites. In formulating the history of the
rupture and planetation of rings Laplace says:
Almost always each ring of vapours must have broken up into
numerous masses, which, moving with a nearly uniform velocity,
must have continued to circulate at the same distance around the
sun. These masses must have taken a spheroidal form with a motion
of rotation in the same direction as their revolution, since the
inner molecules (those nearest the sun) would have less actual
velocity than the exterior ones. They must then have formed as
many planets in a state of vapour. But, if one of them was
sufficiently powerful to unite successively, by its attraction,
all the others around its centre, the ring of vapours must have
been thus transformed into a single spheroidal mass of vapours
circulating around the sun with a rotation in the same direction
as its revolution. The latter case has been the more common, but
the solar system presents us the first case, in the four small
planets which move between Jupiter and Mars.
While few will be found to deny the “magnificent audacity of this
hypothesis,” it is impossible not to recognize the insurmountable
difficulties with which it is attended. Why, for instance, do we find that
the satellites of Neptune and Uranus display a retrograde motion? Why, in
spite of its closer proximity to the Sun, is Venus less dense than the
Earth? Why, again, is the more distant Uranus denser than Saturn? How is
it that there are so many variations in the inclination of their axes and
orbits in the supposed progeny of the central orb; that such startling
variations in the size of the Planets are noticeable; that the satellites
of Jupiter are more dense by ·288 than their primary; that the phenomena
of meteoric and cometary systems still remain unaccounted for? To quote
the words of a Master:
_They_ [the Adepts] _find that the centrifugal theory of Western birth is
unable to cover all the ground. That, unaided, it can neither account for
every oblate spheroid, nor explain away such evident difficulties as are
presented by the relative density of some planets. How, indeed, can any
calculation of centrifugal force explain to us, for instance, why Mercury,
whose rotation is, we are told, only __“__about one‐third that of the
Earth, and its density only about one‐fourth greater than the Earth,__”__
should have a polar compression more than ten times greater than the
latter? And again, why Jupiter, whose equatorial rotation is said to be
__“__twenty‐seven times greater, and its density only about one‐fifth that
of the Earth__”__ should have its polar compression seventeen times
greater than that of the Earth? Or why Saturn, with an equatorial velocity
fifty‐five times greater than Mercury for centripetal force to contend
with, should have its polar compression only three times greater than
Mercury’s? To crown the above contradictions, we are asked to believe in
the Central Forces, as taught by Modern Science, even when told that the
equatorial matter of the Sun, with more than four times the centrifugal
velocity of the Earth’s equatorial surface, and only about one‐fourth part
of the gravitation of the equatorial matter, has not manifested any
tendency to bulge at the solar equator, nor shown the least flattening at
the poles of the solar axis. In other and clearer words, the Sun, with
only one‐fourth of our Earth’s density for the centrifugal force to work
upon, has no polar compression at all! We find this objection made by more
than one astronomer, yet never explained away satisfactorily, so far as
the __“__Adepts__”__ are aware._
_Therefore, do they_ [the Adepts] _say, that the great men of Science of
the West, knowing ... next to nothing either about cometary matter,
centrifugal and centripetal forces, the nature of the nebulæ, or the
physical constitution of the Sun, the Stars, or even the Moon, are
imprudent to speak so confidently as they do about the __“__central mass
of the Sun,__”__ whirling out into space planets, comets, and what not....
We maintain that it_ [the Sun] _evolves out only the life‐principle, the
Soul of these __ bodies, giving and receiving it back, in our little Solar
System, as the __“__Universal Life‐Giver__”__ ... in the Infinitude and
Eternity; that the Solar System is as much the Microcosm of the One
Macrocosm as man is the former when compared with his own little Solar
Cosmos._(1020)
The essential power of all the cosmic and terrestrial Elements to generate
within themselves a regular and harmonious series of results, a
concatenation of causes and effects, is an irrefutable proof that they are
either animated by an _Intelligence_, _ab extrâ_ or _ab intrâ_, or conceal
such within or behind the “manifested veil.” Occultism does not deny the
certainty of the mechanical origin of the Universe; it only claims the
absolute necessity of mechanicians of some sort behind or within those
Elements—a dogma with us. It is not the fortuitous assistance of the Atoms
of Lucretius, as he himself knew well, that built the Kosmos and all in
it. Nature herself contradicts such a theory. Celestial Space, containing
Matter so attenuated as Ether, cannot be called on, with or without
attraction, to explain the common motion of the sidereal hosts. Although
the perfect accord of their inter‐revolution indicates clearly the
presence of a mechanical cause in Nature, Newton, who of all men had most
right to trust to his deductions, was nevertheless forced to abandon the
idea of ever explaining the original impulse given to the millions of
orbs, by merely the laws of _known_ Nature and its material Forces. He
recognized fully the limits that separate the action of natural Forces
from that of the _Intelligences_ that set the immutable laws in order and
action. And if a Newton had to renounce such hope, which of the modern
materialistic pigmies has the right of saying: “I know better?”
A cosmogonical theory, to become complete and comprehensible, has to start
with a Primordial Substance diffused throughout boundless Space, _of an
intellectual and divine nature_. That Substance must be the Soul and
Spirit, the Synthesis and Seventh Principle of the manifested Kosmos, and,
to serve as a spiritual Upâdhi to this, there must be the sixth, its
vehicle—Primordial Physical Matter, so to speak, though its nature must
escape for ever our limited _normal_ senses. It is easy for an Astronomer,
if endowed with an imaginative faculty, to build a theory of the emergence
of the Universe out of Chaos, by simply applying to it the principles of
mechanics. But such a Universe will always prove a Frankenstein’s monster
with respect to its scientific human creator; it will lead him into
endless perplexities. The application of mechanical laws only can never
carry the speculator beyond the objective world; nor will it unveil to men
the origin and final destiny of Kosmos. This is whither the Nebular Theory
has led Science. In sober fact and truth this Theory is twin sister to
that of Ether, and both are the offspring of necessity; one is as
indispensable to account for the transmission of light, as is the other to
explain the problem of the origin of the Solar Systems. The question with
Science is, how the same homogeneous Matter(1021) could, obeying the laws
of Newton, give birth to bodies—Sun, Planets, and their satellites—subject
to conditions of identity of motion, and formed of such heterogeneous
elements.
Has the Nebular Theory helped to solve the problem, even if applied solely
to bodies considered as inanimate and material? We say: most decidedly
not. What progress has it made since 1811, when first Sir William
Herschell’s paper, with its facts based on observation and showing the
existence of nebular matter, made the sons of the Royal Society “shout for
joy”? Since then a still greater discovery, through spectrum analysis, has
permitted the verification and corroboration of Sir William Herschell’s
conjecture. Laplace demanded some kind of primitive “world‐stuff” to prove
the idea of progressive world‐evolution and growth. Here it is, as offered
two millenniums ago.
The “world‐stuff,” now called nebulæ, was known from the highest
antiquity. Anaxagoras taught that, upon differentiation, the resulting
commixture of heterogeneous substances remained motionless and
unorganized, until finally the “Mind”—the collective body of Dhyân
Chohans, we say—began to work upon, and communicated to, them motion and
order.(1022) This theory is now taken up, so far as concerns its first
portion; the last, that of any “Mind” interfering, being rejected.
Spectrum analysis reveals the existence of nebulæ formed entirely of gases
and luminous vapours. Is this the primitive nebular Matter? The spectra
reveal, it is said, the physical conditions of the Matter which emits
cosmic light. The spectra of the resolvable and the irresolvable nebulæ
are shown to be entirely different, the spectra of the latter showing
their physical state to be that of glowing gas or vapour. The bright lines
of one nebula reveal the existence of hydrogen, and of other material
substances known and unknown. The same as to the atmospheres of the Sun
and Stars. This leads to the direct inference that a Star is formed by the
condensation of a nebula; hence that even the metals themselves are formed
on earth by the condensation of hydrogen or of some other primitive
matter, some ancestral cousin to helium, perhaps, or some yet unknown
stuff. _This does not clash with the Occult Teachings._ And this is the
problem that Chemistry is trying to solve; and it must succeed sooner or
later in the task, accepting _nolens volens_, when it does, the Esoteric
Teaching. But when this does happen, it will kill the Nebular Theory as it
now stands.
Meanwhile Astronomy cannot accept in any way, if it is to be regarded as
an _exact_ Science, the present theory of the filiation of Stars—even if
Occultism does so in its own way, seeing that it explains this filiation
differently—because Astronomy has _not one single physical datum_ to show
for it. Astronomy could anticipate Chemistry in proving the existence of
the fact, if it could show a planetary nebula exhibiting a spectrum of
three or four bright lines, gradually condensing and transforming into a
Star, with a spectrum all covered with a number of dark lines. But
The question of the variability of the nebulæ, even as to their
form, is yet one of the mysteries of Astronomy. The data of
observation possessed so far are of too recent an origin, too
uncertain, to permit us to affirm anything.(1023)
Since its discovery, the magic power of the spectroscope has revealed to
its adepts only one single transformation of a Star of this kind; and even
that showed directly the reverse of what is needed as proof in favour of
the Nebular Theory; for it revealed _a Star transforming itself into a
planetary nebula_. As related in _The Observatory_,(1024) the temporary
Star, discovered by J. F. J. Schmidt in the constellation Cygnus, in
November, 1876, exhibited a spectrum broken by very brilliant lines.
Gradually, the continuous spectrum and most of the lines disappeared,
leaving finally one single brilliant line, which appeared to coincide with
the green line of the nebula.
Though this metamorphosis is not irreconcileable with the hypothesis of
the nebular origin of the Stars, nevertheless this single solitary case
rests on no observation whatever, least of all on direct observation. The
occurrence may have been due to several other causes. Since Astronomers
are inclined to think our Planets are tending toward precipitation into
the Sun, why should not that Star have blazed up owing to a collision of
such precipitated Planets, or, as many suggest, the appulse of a Comet? Be
that as it may, the only known instance of star‐transformation since 1811
is not favourable to the Nebular Theory. Moreover, on the question of this
Theory, as on all others, Astronomers disagree.
In our own age, and before Laplace ever thought of it, Buffon, being very
much struck by the identity of motion in the Planets, was the first to
propose the hypothesis that the Planets and their satellites originated in
the bosom of the Sun. Forthwith and for this purpose, he invented a
special Comet, supposed to have torn out, by a powerful oblique blow, the
quantity of matter necessary for their formation. Laplace gave its dues to
the “Comet” in his _Exposition du Système du Monde_.(1025) But the idea
was seized and even improved upon by a conception of the alternate
evolution, from the Sun’s central mass, of Planets _apparently_ without
weight or influence on the motion of the visible Planets—and as evidently
without any more existence than the likeness of Moses in the Moon.
But the modern theory is also a variation on the systems elaborated by
Kant and Laplace. The idea of both was that, at the origin of things, all
that Matter which now enters into the composition of the planetary bodies
was spread over all the space comprized in the Solar System—and even
beyond. It was a nebula of extremely small density, and its condensation
gradually gave birth, by a mechanism that has hitherto never been
explained, to the various bodies of our System. This is the original
Nebular Theory, an _incomplete_ yet faithful repetition—a short chapter
out of the large volume of universal Esoteric Cosmogony—of the teachings
of the Secret Doctrine. And both systems, Kant’s and Laplace’s, differ
greatly from the modern Theory, redundant with conflicting _sub_‐theories
and fanciful hypotheses. Say the Teachers:
_The essence of cometary matter_ [and of that which composes the
Stars] ... _is totally different from any of the chemical or
physical characteristics with which the greatest Chemists and
Physicists of the earth are familiar.... While the spectroscope
has shown the probable similarity_ [owing to the chemical action
of terrestrial light upon the intercepted rays] _of terrestrial
and sidereal substance, the chemical actions peculiar to the
variously progressed orbs of space, have not been detected, nor
proven to be identical with those observed on our own
planet._(1026)
Mr. Crookes says almost the same in the fragment quoted from his lecture,
_Elements and Meta‐Elements_. C. Wolf, Member of the Institute, Astronomer
of the Observatory, Paris, observes:
At the utmost the nebular hypothesis can only show in its favour,
with W. Herschell, the existence of planetary nebulæ in various
degrees of condensation, and of spiral nebulæ, with nuclei of
condensation on the branches and centre.(1027) But, in fact, the
knowledge of the bond that unites the nebulæ to the stars is yet
denied to us; and lacking as we do direct observation, we are even
debarred from establishing it on the analogy of chemical
composition.(1028)
Even if the men of Science—leaving aside the difficulty arising out of
such undeniable variety and heterogeneity of matter in the constitution of
nebulæ—did admit, with the Ancients, that the origin of all the visible
and invisible heavenly bodies must be sought for in one primordial
homogeneous world‐stuff, in a kind of _Pre_‐Protyle,(1029) it is evident
that this would not put an end to their perplexities. Unless they admit
also that our actual visible Universe is merely the Sthûla Sharîra, the
gross body, of the sevenfold Kosmos, they will have to face another
problem; especially if they venture to maintain that its now visible
bodies are the result of the condensation of that one and single
Primordial Matter. For mere observation shows them that the operations
which produced the actual Universe are far more complex than could ever be
embraced in that theory.
First of all, there are two distinct classes of “irresolvable” nebulæ, as
Science itself teaches.
The telescope is unable to distinguish between these two classes, but the
spectroscope can do so, and notices an essential difference between their
physical constitutions.
The question of the resolvability of the nebulæ has been often
presented in too affirmative a manner and quite contrary to the
ideas expressed by the illustrious experimenter with the spectra
of these constellations—Mr. Huggins. Every nebula whose spectrum
contains only bright lines is gaseous, it is said, and hence is
irresolvable; every nebula with a continuous spectrum must end by
resolving into stars with an instrument of sufficient power. This
assumption is contrary at once to the results obtained, and to
spectroscopic theory. The “Lyra” nebula, the “Dumb‐bell” nebula,
the central region of the nebula of Orion, appear resolvable, and
show a spectrum of bright lines; the nebula of Canes Venatici is
not resolvable, and gives a continuous spectrum. Because, indeed,
the spectroscope informs us of the physical state of the
constituent matter of the stars, but affords us no notions of
their modes of aggregation. A nebula formed of gaseous globes (or
even of nuclei, faintly luminous, surrounded by a powerful
atmosphere) would give a spectrum of lines and be still
resolvable; such seems to be the state of Huggins’ region in the
Orion nebula. A nebula formed of solid or fluidic particles in a
state of incandescence, a true cloud, will give a continuous
spectrum and will be irresolvable.
Some of these nebulæ, Wolf tells us,
Have a spectrum of three or four bright lines, others a continuous
spectrum. The first are gaseous, the others formed of a
pulverulent matter. The former must constitute a veritable
atmosphere: it is among these that the solar nebula of Laplace has
to be placed. The latter form an _ensemble_ of particles that may
be considered as independent, and the rotation of which obeys the
laws of internal weight: such are the nebulæ adopted by Kant and
Faye. Observation allows us to place the one as the other at the
very origin of the planetary world. But when we try to go beyond
and ascend to the primitive chaos which has produced the totality
of the heavenly bodies, we have first to account for the actual
existence of these two classes of nebulæ. If the primitive chaos
were a cold luminous gas,(1030) one could understand how the
contraction resulting from attraction could have heated it and
made it luminous. We have to explain the condensation of this gas
to the state of incandescent particles, the presence of which is
revealed to us in certain nebulæ by the spectroscope. If the
original chaos was composed of such particles, how did certain of
their portions pass into the gaseous state, while others have
preserved their primitive condition?
Such is the synopsis of the objections and difficulties in the way of the
acceptance of the Nebular Theory, brought forward by the French _savant_,
who concludes this interesting argument by declaring that:
The first part of the cosmogonical problem—what is the primitive
matter of chaos; and how did that matter give birth to the sun and
stars?—thus remains to this day in the domain of romance and of
mere imagination.(1031)
If this is the last word of Science upon the subject, whither then should
we turn in order to learn what the Nebular Theory is supposed to teach?
What, in fact, is this theory? What it _is_, no one seems to know for
certain. What it is not—we learn from the erudite author of _World‐Life_.
He tells us that it:
i. Is not a theory of the evolution of the Universe. It is
primarily a genetic explanation of the phenomena of the solar
system, and accessorily a co‐ordination in a common conception of
the principal phenomena in the stellar and nebular firmament, as
far as human vision has been able to penetrate.
ii. It does not regard the comets as involved in that particular
evolution which has produced the Solar System. [The Esoteric
Doctrine does, because it, too, “recognizes the comets as forms of
cosmic existence co‐ordinated with earlier stages of nebular
evolution”; and it actually assigns _to them chiefly_ the
formation of all worlds.]
iii. _It does not deny an antecedent history of the luminous fire
mist_—[the _secondary_ stage of evolution in the Secret Doctrine]
[and] ... makes no claim to having reached an absolute beginning.
[And even it allows that this] fire mist may have previously
existed in a cold, non‐luminous and invisible condition.
iv. [And that finally] _it does not profess to discover the_
ORIGIN _of things, but only a stadium in material history_....
[leaving] the philosopher and the theologian as free as they ever
were to seek the origin of the modes of being.(1032)
But this is not all. Even the greatest philosopher of England—Mr. Herbert
Spencer—arrayed himself against this fantastic theory by saying that (_a_)
“The problem of existence is not resolved” by it; (_b_) the nebular
hypothesis “throws no light upon the origin of diffused matter”; and (_c_)
that “the nebular hypothesis (as it now stands) implies a First
Cause.”(1033)
The latter, we are afraid, is more than our modern Physicists have
bargained for. Thus, it seems that the poor “hypothesis” can hardly expect
to find help or corroboration even in the world of the Metaphysicians.
Considering all this, the Occultists believe they have a right to present
_their_ Philosophy, however misunderstood and ostracized it may be at
present. And they maintain that this failure of the Scientists to discover
the truth is entirely due to their Materialism and their contempt for
transcendental Sciences. Yet although the scientific minds in our century
are as far from the true and correct doctrine of Evolution as ever, there
may be still some hope left for the future, for even now we find another
Scientist giving us a faint glimmer of it.
In an article in the _Popular Science Review_ on “Recent Researches in
Minute Life,” we find Mr. H. J. Slack, F.C.S., Sec. R.M.S., saying:
There is an evident convergence of all sciences, from physics to
chemistry and physiology, toward some doctrine of evolution and
development, of which the facts of Darwinism will form part, but
what ultimate aspect this doctrine will take, there is little, if
any, evidence to show, and perhaps it will not be shaped by the
human mind until metaphysical as well as physical inquiries are
much more advanced.(1034)
This is a happy forecast indeed. The day _may_ come, then, when “Natural
Selection,” as taught by Mr. Darwin and Mr. Herbert Spencer, will, in its
ultimate modification, form only _a part_ of our Eastern doctrine of
Evolution, which will be Manu and Kapila _Esoterically explained_.