Page 44 (part 2)

Finally, the journal of this name published in 1811 the famous hypothesis on the transformation of the nebulae into stars, by the eminent astronomer, Sir W. Herschell ( See " Philosophical Transactions ," of 1811, p. 269, et seq. ), after which the nebular theory was accepted by the Royal Academies. In "Five years of Theosophy," on p. 245, an article headed " Do the Adepts deny the Nebular Theory? " may be read. 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 proclaimed at the time "an evasive answer." Such disrespect to official science, it was argued, must be justified by the presentation, to replace the orthodox speculation, of another theory more complete than theirs, 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 whole and consecutive system, which, when separated from the main body of the teaching, would necessarily lose their vital coherence and thus do no good when studied independently. To be able to appreciate and accept the occult views on the nebular theory, one has to 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 W. Herschell], that had nothing "supernatural" in them, about the sun being called " globe of fire " (perhaps) metaphorically , and his early speculations about the nature of that which is now called the Nasmyth willow-leaf theory -- caused that most eminent of all astro- [[Vol. 1, Page]] 591 FORCES ARE EMANATIONS. nomers to be smiled at by other, far less eminent colleagues, who saw and now see in his ideas only "imaginative and fanciful theories." Before the whole esoteric system could be given out and appreciated by the astronomers, they would have to return to some of those "antiquated ideas," not only to those of Herschell, but to the dreams of the oldest Hindu astronomers, and to abandon their own theories, none the less "fanciful" because they have appeared in one case nearly 80 years and in the other many thousands of years later. Foremost of all they would have to repudiate the ideas on the Sun's solidity and incandescence; the sun "glowing" most undeniably, but not "burning." Then it is stated, with regard to Sir W. Herschell's view that those "objects," as he called the "willow leaves," are the immediate sources of the solar light and heat. And though the esoteric teaching does not regard these as he did -- namely, organisms as 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 that finally the great astronomer was right in saying that "we do not know that vital action is competent to develop at once heat, light, and electricity" while speculating on those supposed "organisms." 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 resume 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 unrecognisable, 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 [[Vol. 1, Page]] 592 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. 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? This is what one gathers from various astronomical works. Laplace thought that, consequent on 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, contracting necessarily by gravitation (as accepted) into spheroidal bodies, which would necessarily still continue to preserve the same orbit occupied previously by the outer zone from which they were separated. ("Laplace conceived that the external and internal zones of the ring would rotate with the same angular velocity, which would be the case with a solid ring; but the principle of equal areas requires the inner zones to rotate more rapidly than the outer.")* 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.