Page 40 (part 3)

It is assimilating the very truths taught by the Occult Sciences [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- [[Footnote continued from previous page]] "to be best understood on the hypothesis of the homogeneity of the elements of matter, and the continuity of the states of matter." For all this does not go beyond MATERIAL matter, so to say, even in what is shown by the spectrum , that modern "eye of Siva" of physical experiments. It is of this matter only, that H. St. Claire Deville could say that "when bodies, deemed to be simple, combine with one another, they vanish, they are individually annihilated " ; simply because he could not follow those bodies in their further transformation in the world of spiritual cosmic matter. Verily modern science will never be able to dig deep enough into the cosmological formations to find the roots of the world-stuff or matter, unless she works on the same lines of thought as the medieval alchemist did. * "World-Life," Ibid. [[Vol. 1, Page]] 545 THE ORIGINAL BASE. for ages, but hitherto bitterly derided. "Matter is eternal," says the Esoteric Doctrine. But the matter the Occultists conceive of in its laya , or zero state , is not the matter of modern science; not even in its most rarefied gaseous state. Mr. Crookes' "radiant matter" would appear matter of the grossest kind in the realm of the beginnings, as it becomes pure spirit before it has returned back even to its first point of differentiation. Therefore, when the adept or alchemist adds that, though matter is eternal, for it is P RADHANA, yet atoms are born at every new manvantara , or reconstruction of the universe, it is no such contradiction as a materialist, who believes in nothing beyond the atom, might think. There is a difference between manifested and unmanifested matter, between pradhana , the beginningless and endless cause, and prakriti , or the manifested effect. Says the sloka; -- "That which is the unevolved cause is emphatically called by the most eminent sages, pradhana , original base , which is subtile prakriti , viz. , that which is eternal, and which at once is, and is not, a mere process. "* That which in modern phraseology is respectively referred to as Spirit and Matter, is ONE in eternity as the perpetual cause, and it is neither Spirit nor matter, but IT -- rendered in Sanskrit TAD ("that"), -- all that is, was, or will be, all that the imagination of man is capable of conceiving. Even the exoteric Pantheism of Hinduism renders it as no monotheistic philosophy ever did, for in superb phraseology its cosmogony begins with the well-known words: -- "There was neither day nor night, neither heaven nor earth, neither darkness nor light. And there was not ought else apprehensible by the senses or by the mental faculties. There was then one Brahma, essentially prakriti (Nature) and Spirit. For the two aspects of Vishnu which are other than his supreme essential aspect are prakriti and Spirit, and Brahman. When these two other ASPECTS of his no longer subsist , but are dissolved , then that aspect whence form and the rest, i.e. , creation , proceed anew , is denominated time, O twice-born." It is that which is dissolved, or the illusionary dual aspect of That, the essence of which is eternally ONE, that we call eternal matter or Substance (Vide in Part II . , " Primordial Substance and Divine Thought "), formless, sexless, inconceivable, even to our sixth sense or mind,** in which, therefore, we refuse to see that which Monotheists call a personal , anthropomorphic God. How are these two propositions -- "that matter is eternal," and "the atom periodical, and not eternal" -- viewed by modern exact Science? The materialistic physicist will criticize and laugh them to scorn. The [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * Book I. ch. II. Vishnu Purana , Fitzedward Hall's Translation. ** Vide preceding Section IX ., "Life, Force, and Gravity," quotation from Anugita . [[Vol. 1, Page]] 546 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. liberal and progressive man of Science, however, the true and earnest scientific searcher after truth -- e.g ., the eminent chemist, Mr. Crookes, will corroborate the probability of the two statements. For, hardly has the echo of his lecture on the "Genesis of the Elements" died away --the lecture which, delivered by him before the Chemical Section of the British Association, at the last Birmingham meeting, so startled every evolutionist who heard or read it -- than there came another one in March last, 1888. Once more the President of the Chemical Society brings before the world of Science and the public the fruits of some new discoveries in the realm of atoms, and these discoveries justify the occult teachings in every way. They are more startling even than the statements made by him in the first lecture (quoted later) and deserve well the attention of every Occultist, Theosophist, and Metaphysician. This is what he says in his "Elements and Meta -Elements," thus justifying Stallo's charges and prevision with the fearlessness of a scientific mind which loves science for truth's sake, regardless of any consequences to his own glory and reputation. We quote his own words: Permit me, gentlemen, now to draw your attention for a short time to a subject which concerns the fundamental principles of chemistry, a subject which may lead us to admit the possible existence of bodies which, though neither compounds nor mixtures, are not elements in the strictest sense of the word -- bodies which I venture to call "meta-elements." To explain my meaning it is necessary for me to revert to our conception of an element. What is the criterion of an element? Where are we to draw the line between distinct existence and identity? No one doubts that oxygen, sodium, chlorine, sulphur are separate elements; and when we come to such groups as chlorine, bromine, iodine, &c., we still feel no doubt, although were degrees of "elementicity" admissible -- and to that we may ultimately have to come -- it might be allowed that chlorine approximates much more closely to bromine than to oxygen, sodium, or sulphur. Again, nickel and cobalt are near to each other, very near, though no one questions their claim to rank as distinct elements. Still I cannot help asking what would have been the prevalent opinion among chemists had the respective solutions of these bodies and their compounds presented identical colours, instead of colours which, approximately speaking, are mutually complementary. Would their distinct nature have even now been recognised? When we pass further and come to the so-called rare earths the ground is less secure under our feet.