Page 34 (part 1)

The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 1 [[Vol. 1, Page]] 483 NO AGREEMENT AMONG SCIENTISTS. [[This page continued from previous section ]] III. "AN LUMEN SIT CORPUS, NEC NON?" M OST 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 indebted, if not solely, to Sir W. Grove. It was he who was the first in a lecture at the London Institution, in 1842, to show that [[Vol. 1, Page]] 484 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. "light, heat, etc., etc.* are affections of matter itself, and not a distinct ethereal, 'imponderable,' fluid, (a state of matter now ) permeating it." ( See " Correlation of the Physical Forces ," Preface ) . Yet, perhaps, for some physicists -- as for Oersted, a very eminent Scientist -- F ORCE and F ORCES 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 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 A DEPTS? Sir Isaac Newton held to the Pythagorean corpuscular theory, and was also inclined to admit its consequences; which made the Count 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 ( Soirees , vol. ii.). 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. 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 breathed a word about any mechanical ideas connected with its fall. Great contempt is shown for metaphysics generally and for onto- [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * Mr. Robert Ward, discussing the questions of Heat and Light in the November Journal of Science , 1881, shows us how utterly ignorant is Science about one of the commonest facts of nature -- the heat of the sun. He says: -- "The question of the temperature of the sun has been the subject of investigation with many scientists: Newton, one of the first investigators of this problem, tried to determine it, and after him all the scientists who have been occupied with calorimetry have followed his example. All have believed themselves successful , and have formulated their results with great confidence. The following, in the chronological order of the publication of the results, are the temperatures (in centigrade degrees) found by each of them: Newton, 1,699,300 deg.; Pouillet, 1,461 deg.; Tollner, 102,200 deg.; Secchi, 5,344,840 deg.; Ericsson, 2,726,700 deg.; Fizeau, 7,500 deg.; Waterston, 9,000,000 deg.; Spoeren, 27,000 deg.; Deville, 9,500 deg.; Soret, 5,801,846 deg.; Vicaire, 1,500 deg.; Rosetti, 20,000 deg. The difference is as 1,400 deg. against 9,000,000 deg., or no less than 8,998,600 deg.!! There probably does not exist in science a more astonishing contradiction than that revealed in these figures. And yet without doubt if an Occultist were to give out an estimate, each of these gentlemen would vehemently protest in the name of ' E XACT' Science at the rejection of his special result." (From the Theosophist. ) ** 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." [[Vol. 1, Page]] 485 THE METAPHYSICS OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE. logical metaphysics especially. But we see, whenever the Occultists are bold enough to raise their diminished heads, that materialistic, physical science is honey-combed with metaphysics;* 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 actions. A second proof is found in the many contradictory statements about the atom -- the most metaphysical object in creation. Now, what does the modern science of physics know of AEther, the first concept of which belongs undeniably to ancient philosophers, the Greeks having borrowed it from the Aryans, and the origin of modern AEther being found in, and disfigured from, A KASA? This disfigurement [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * Stallo's above-cited work, "Concepts of Modern Physics," a volume which has called forth the liveliest protests and criticisms, is recommended to anyone inclined to doubt this statement. "The professed antagonism of Science to metaphysics," he writes, "has led the majority of scientific specialists to assume that the methods and results of empirical research are wholly independent of the control of the laws of thought. They either silently ignore, or openly repudiate, the simplest canons of logic, including the laws of non-contradiction and . . . resent with the utmost vehemence, every application of the rule of consistency to their hypotheses and theories . . . . and they regard an examination (of these) . . . . in the light of these laws as an impertinent intrusion of ' a priori principles and methods' into the domains of empirical science.