THE SECRET DOCTRINE -- THE SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY
BOOK I. — PART III.
SCIENCE AND THE SECRET DOCTRINE CONTRASTED.
Many of the doctrines contained in the foregoing Seven Stanzas and Commentaries having been studied and critically examined by some Western Theosophists, certain of the occult teachings have been found wanting from the ordinary stand-point of modern scientific knowledge. They seemed to encounter insuperable difficulties in the way of their acceptance, and to require reconsideration in view of scientific criticism. Some friends have already been tempted to regret the necessity of so often calling in question the assertions of modern Science. It appeared to them — and I here repeat only their arguments — that “to run counter to the teachings of its most eminent exponents, was to court a premature discomfiture in the eyes of the Western World.”
It is, therefore, desirable to define once and for all the position which the writer, who does not agree in this with her friends, intends to maintain. So far as Science remains what in the words of Prof. Huxley it is, viz., “organized common sense”; so far as its inferences are drawn from accurate premises — its generalizations resting on a purely inductive basis — every Theosophist and Occultist welcomes respectfully and with due admiration its contributions to the domain of cosmological law. There can be no possible conflict between the teachings of occult and so-called exact Science, where the conclusions of the latter are grounded on a substratum of unassailable fact. It is only when its more ardent exponents, over-stepping the limits of observed phenomena in order to penetrate into the arcana of Being, attempt to wrench the formation of Kosmos and its living Forces from Spirit, and attribute all to blind matter, that the Occultists claim the right to dispute and call in question their theories. Science cannot, owing to the very nature of things, unveil the mystery of the universe around us. Science can, it is true, collect, classify, and generalize upon phenomena; but the occultist, arguing from admitted metaphysical data, declares that the daring explorer, who would probe the inmost secrets of Nature, must transcend the narrow limitations of sense, and transfer his consciousness into the region of noumena and the sphere of primal causes. To effect this, he must develop faculties which are absolutely dormant — save in a few rare and exceptional cases — in the constitution of the off-shoots of our present Fifth Root-race in Europe and America. He can in no other conceivable manner collect the facts on which to base his speculations. Is this not apparent on the principles of Inductive Logic and Metaphysics alike?
On the other hand, whatever the writer may do, she will never be able to satisfy both Truth and Science. To offer the reader a systematic and uninterrupted version of the Archaic Stanzas is impossible. A gap of 43 verses or Slokas has to be left between the 7th (already given) and the 51st, which is the subject of Book II., though the latter are made to run from 1 et seq. for easier reading and reference. The appearance of man on Earth alone occupies as many stanzas, which describe minutely his primal evolution from the human Dhyan Chohans; the state of the globe at that time, etc., etc. A great number of names referring to chemical substances and other compounds, which have now ceased to combine together, and are therefore unknown to the later offshoots of our Fifth Race, occupy a considerable space. As they are simply untranslateable, and would remain in every case inexplicable, they are omitted, along with those which cannot be made public. Nevertheless, even the little that is given will irritate any follower and defender of dogmatic materialistic Science who happens to read this.
Before proceeding to other Stanzas, it is proposed, therefore, to defend those already given. They are not in perfect accord or harmony with modern Science — this we all know. Had they been, however, as much in agreement with the views of modern knowledge as a lecture by Sir W. Thomson, they would have been rejected all the same. For they teach belief in conscious Powers and Spiritual Entities; in terrestrial, semi-intelligent, and highly intellectual Forces on other planes ; and in Beings that dwell around us in spheres imperceptible, whether through telescope or microscope. Hence the necessity of examining the beliefs of materialistic Science: of comparing its views about the “Elements” with the opinions of the ancients, and of analysing the physical Forces as they exist in modern perception before the Occultists admit themselves to be in the wrong. We shall touch upon the constitution of the Sun and planets, and the occult characteristics of what are called Devas and Genii, and are now termed by Science, Force, or “modes of motion,” and see whether esoteric belief is defensible or not (Vide infra, “Gods, Monads, and Atoms)”. Notwithstanding the efforts made to the contrary, an unprejudiced mind will discover under Newton’s “agent, material or immaterial” (of his third letter to Bentley), the agent which causes gravity, and, in his personal working God, one finds just as much of the metaphysical devas and genii, as in Kepler’s angelus rector conducting each planet, and the species immateriata by which the celestial bodies were carried along in their courses, according to that astronomer.
We shall have, in Book II., to openly approach dangerous subjects. We must bravely face Science and declare, in the teeth of materialistic learning, of Idealism, Hylo-Idealism, Positivism and all-denying modern Psychology, that the true Occultist believes in “Lords of Light;” that he believes in a Sun, which, far from being simply “a lamp of day” moving in accordance with physical law, and far from being merely one of those Suns, which according to Richter — “. . . . are Sun-flowers of a higher light” — is, like milliards of other Suns, the dwelling or the vehicle of a god, and a host of gods.
In this question, of course, it is the Occultists who will be worsted. They will be considered on the prima facie aspect of the dispute to be ignoramuses, and labelled with more than one of the usual epithets given to those whom the superficially judging public, itself ignorant of the great underlying truths in nature, accuses of believing in mediaeval superstitions. Let it be so. Submitting beforehand to every criticism in order to go on with their task, they only claim the privilege of showing that the physicists are as much at loggerheads among themselves in their speculations, as the latter are with the teachings of Occultism.
The Sun is matter, and the Sun is Spirit. Our ancestors — the “heathen,” — along with their modern successors, the Parsis — were, and are, wise enough in their generation to see in it the symbol of Divinity, and at the same time to sense within, concealed by the physical Symbol, the bright God of Spiritual and terrestrial Light. Such belief is now regarded as a superstition only by rank materialism, which denies Deity, Spirit, Soul, and admits no intelligence outside the mind of man. But if too much of wrong superstition bred by “Churchianity” — as Lawrence Oliphant calls it — “renders a man a fool,” too much scepticism makes him mad. We prefer the charge of folly in believing too much, to that of a madness which denies everything, as do Materialism and Idealism. Hence, the Occultists are fully prepared to receive their dues from Materialism, and to meet the adverse criticism which will be poured on this work, not for writing it, but for believing in that which it contains.
Therefore the discoveries, hypotheses, and unavoidable objections which will be brought forward by the scientific critics must be anticipated and disposed of. It has also to be shown how far the occult teachings depart from real science, and whether the ancient or the modern theories are the most logically and philosophically correct. The unity and mutual relations of all parts of Kosmos were known to the ancients, before they became evident to modern astronomers and philosophers. And if even the external and visible portions of the Universe and their mutual relations cannot be explained in any other terms than those used by the adherents of the mechanical theory of the Universe in physical science, it follows that no materialist, who denies that the Soul of Kosmos (which appertains to metaphysical philosophy) exists, has the right to trespass upon that metaphysical domain. That physical science is trying to, and actually does, encroach upon it, is only one more proof that “might is right,” and no more.
Another good reason for these Addenda is this. Since only a certain portion of the Secret teachings can be given out in the present age, if they were published without any explanations or commentary, the doctrines would never be understood even by theosophists. Therefore they must be contrasted with the speculations of modern science. Archaic axioms must be placed side by side with modern hypotheses and comparison left to the sagacious reader.
On the question of the “Seven Governors,” as Hermes calls the “Seven Builders,” the Spirits which guide the operations of nature, the animated atoms of which are the shadows, in their world, of their Primaries in the astral realms — this work will, of course, besides the men of Science, have every materialist against it. But this opposition can, at most, be only temporary. People have laughed at everything and scouted every unpopular idea at first, and then ended by accepting it. Materialism and scepticism are evils that must remain in the world as long as man has not quitted his present gross form to don the one he had during the first and second races of this Round. Unless scepticism and our present natural ignorance are equilibrated by intuition and a natural spirituality, every being afflicted with such feelings will see in himself no better than a bundle of flesh, bones, and muscles, with an empty garret inside him which serves the purpose of storing his sensations and feelings. Sir Humphry Davy was a great scientist, as deeply versed in physics as any theorist of our day, yet he loathed materialism. “I heard with disgust,” he says, “in the dissecting-rooms, the plan of the physiologist, of the gradual secretion of matter, and its becoming endued with irritability, ripening into sensibility, and acquiring such organs as were necessary, by its own inherent forces, and at last rising into intellectual existence.” Nevertheless, physiologists are not the most to be blamed for speaking of that only which they can see and estimate on the evidence of their physical senses. Astronomers and physicists are, we consider, far more illogical in their materialistic views than even physiologists, and this has to be proved. Milton’s —
has become with the materialists only —
For the occultists it is both Spirit and Matter. Behind the “mode of motion,” now regarded as “the property of matter” and nothing more, they perceive the radiant noumenon. It is the “Spirit of Light,” the first born of the Eternal pure Element, whose energy (or emanation) is stored in the Sun, the great Life-Giver of the physical world, as the hidden Concealed Spiritual Sun is the Light- and Life-Giver of the Spiritual and Psychic Realms. Bacon was one of the first to strike the key-note of materialism, not only by his inductive method (renovated from ill-digested Aristotle), but by the general tenor of his writings. He inverts the order of mental Evolution when saying that “the first Creation of God was the light of the sense; the last was the light of the reason; and his Sabbath work ever since is the illumination of the Spirit.” It is just the reverse. The light of Spirit is the eternal Sabbath of the mystic or occultist, and he pays little attention to that of mere sense. That which is meant by the allegorical sentence, “Fiat Lux” is,— when esoterically rendered — “Let there be the ‘Sons of Light,’ ” or the noumena of all phenomena. Thus the Roman Catholics rightly interpret the passage as referring to Angels, and wrongly as meaning Powers created by an anthropomorphic God, whom they personify in the ever thundering and punishing Jehovah.
These beings are the “Sons of Light,” because they emanate from, and are self-generated in, that infinite Ocean of Light, whose one pole is pure Spirit lost in the absoluteness of Non-Being, and the other, the matter in which it condenses, crystallizing into a more and more gross type as it descends into manifestation. Therefore matter, though it is, in one sense, but the illusive dregs of that Light whose limbs are the Creative Forces, yet has in it the full presence of the Soul thereof, of that Principle, which none — not even the “Sons of Light,” evolved from its absolute darkness — will ever know. The idea is as beautifully, as it is truthfully, expressed by Milton, who hails the holy Light, which is the —
And now Occultism puts to Science the question: “Is light a body, or is it not?” Whatever the answer of the latter, the former is prepared to show that, to this day, the most eminent physicists know neither one way nor the other. To know what is light, and whether it is an actual substance or a mere undulation of the “ethereal medium,” Science has first to learn what are in reality Matter, Atom, Ether, Force. Now, the truth is, that it knows nothing of any of these, and admits it. It has not even agreed what to believe in, as dozens of hypotheses emanating from various and very eminent Scientists on the same subject, are antagonistic to each other and often self-contradictory. Thus their learned speculations may, with a stretch of good-will, be accepted as “working hypotheses” in a secondary sense, as Stallo puts it. But being radically inconsistent with each other, they must finally end by mutually destroying themselves. As declared by the author of “Concepts of Modern Physics”: —
The above is the photographically correct image of modern Science and physics. The “pre-requisite of that incessant play of the ‘scientific imagination,’ ” which is so often found in Professor Tyndall’s eloquent discourses, is vivid indeed, as shown by Stallo, and for contradictory variety leaves far behind it any “phantasies” of occultism. However it may be, if physical theories are confessedly “mere formal, explanatory, didactic devices,” and if “atomism is only a symbolical graphic system,”  then the occultist can hardly be regarded as assuming too much, when he places alongside of these devices and “symbolical systems” of modern Science, the symbols and devices of Archaic teachings.
Most 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 “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 — Force and Forces 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 Adepts?
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 ontological 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, Akasa? This disfigurement is claimed to be a modification and refinement of the idea of Lucretius. Let us then examine the modern concept from several scientific volumes containing the admissions of the physicists themselves.
The existence of Ether is accepted by physical astronomy, in ordinary physics, and in chemistry. Astronomers, who first began by regarding it as a fluid of extreme tenuity and mobility, offering no sensible resistance to the motions of celestial bodies, never gave a thought to its continuity or discontinuity. “Its main function in modern astronomy has been to serve as a basis for hydrodynamical theories of gravitation. In physics this fluid appeared for some time in several roles in connection with the ‘imponderables’ ” — so cruelly put to death by Sir W. Grove. Some physicists have even identified the ether of space with those “imponderables.” Then came their Kinetic theories; and from the date of the dynamical theory of heat, it was chosen in optics as a substratum for luminous undulations. Then, in order to explain the dispersion and polarization of light, physicists had to resort once more to their “scientific imagination” and forthwith endowed the Ether with (a) atomic or molecular structure, and (b) with an enormous elasticity, “so that its resistance to deformation far exceeded that of the most rigid elastic bodies” (Stallo). This necessitated the theory of the essential discontinuity of matter, hence of Ether. After having accepted this discontinuity, in order to account for dispersion and polarization, theoretical impossibilities were discovered with regard to such dispersions. Cauchy’s “scientific imagination” saw in atoms “material points without extension,” and he proposed, in order to obviate the most formidable obstacles to the undulatory theory (namely, some well-known mechanical theorems which stood in the way), to assume that the ethereal medium of propagation, instead of being continuous, should consist of particles separated by sensible distances. Fresnel rendered the same service to the phenomena of polarization. E. B. Hunt upset the theories of both (Silliman’s Journal, vol. viii., p. 364 et seq.) There are now men of Science who proclaim them “materially fallacious,” while others — the “atomo-mechanicalists” — cling to to them with desperate tenacity. The supposition of an atomic or molecular constitution of ether is upset, moreover, by thermodynamics, for Clerk Maxwell showed that such a medium would be simply gas.  The hypothesis of “finite intervals” is thus proven of no avail as a supplement to the undulatory theory. Besides, eclipses fail to reveal any such variation of colour as supposed by Cauchy (on the assumption that the chromatic rays are propagated with different velocities). Astronomy has pointed out more than one phenomenon absolutely at variance with this doctrine.
Thus, while in one department of physics the atomo-molecular constitution of the ether is accepted in order to account for one set of special phenomena, in another department such a constitution is found quite subversive of a number of well-ascertained facts, Hirn’s charges being thus justified (vide supra). Chemistry deemed it impossible to concede enormous elasticity to the ether without depriving it of other properties, upon the assumption of which the construction of its modern theories depended. This ended in a final transformation of ether. The exigencies of the atomo-mechanical theory have led distinguished mathematicians and physicists to attempt to substitute for the traditional atoms of matter, peculiar forms of vortical motion in a “universal homogeneous, incompressible, and continuous material medium,” or AEther. (See Stallo.)
The present writer, claiming no great scientific education, but only a tolerable acquaintance with modern theories, and a better one with Occult Sciences, picks up weapons against the detractors of the esoteric teaching in the very arsenal of modern Science. The glaring contradictions, the mutually-destructive hypotheses of world-renowned Scientists, their mutual accusations, denunciations and disputes, show plainly that, whether accepted or not, the Occult theories have as much right to a hearing as any of the so-called learned and academical hypotheses. Thus whether the followers of the Royal Society choose to accept ether as a continuous or a discontinuous fluid matters little, and is indifferent to the present purpose. It simply points to one certainty: Official Science knows nothing to this day of the constitution of ether. Let Science call it matter, if it likes; only neither as akasa nor as the one sacred AEther of the Greeks, is it to be found in any of the states of matter known to modern physics. It is matter on quite another plane of perception and being, and it can neither be analyzed by scientific apparatus, appreciated, nor even conceived by “scientific imagination,” unless the possessors thereof study the Occult Sciences. That which follows proves this statement.
It is clearly demonstrated by Stallo as regards the crucial problems of modern physics (as was done by De Quatrefages and several others in those of anthropology, biology, etc., etc.) that, in their efforts to support their individual hypotheses and systems, the majority of the eminent and learned materialists very often utter the greatest fallacies. Let us take the following case. Most of them reject actio in distans (one of the fundamental principles in the question of AEther or Akasa in Occultism), while, as Stallo justly observes, there is no physical action, “which, on close examination, does not resolve itself into actio in distans”; and he proves it.
Now, metaphysical arguments, according to Professor Lodge (Nature, vol. xxvii., p. 304), are “unconscious appeals to experience.” And he adds that if such an experience is not conceivable, then it does not exist, etc. In his own words: — “. . . If a highly-developed mind or set of minds, find a doctrine about some comparatively simple and fundamental matter absolutely unthinkable, it is an evidence . . . that the unthinkable state of things has no existence, etc.”
And thereupon, toward the end of his lecture, Professor Lodge indicates that the explanation of cohesion, as well as of gravity, “is to be looked for in the vortex-atom theory of Sir William Thomson” (Stallo).
It is needless to stop to inquire whether it is to this vortex-theory, also, that we have to look for the dropping down on earth of the first life-germ by a passing meteor or comet (Sir W. Thomson’s hypothesis). But Mr. Lodge might be reminded of the wise criticism on his lecture in the same “Concepts of Modern Physics.” Noticing the above-quoted declaration by the London Professor, the author asks “whether . . . the elements of the vortex-theory are familiar, or even possible, facts of experience? For, if they are not, clearly that theory is obnoxious to the same criticism which is said to invalidate the assumption of actio in distans” (p. xxiv). And then the able critic shows clearly what the Ether is not, nor can ever be, notwithstanding all scientific claims to the contrary. And thus he opens widely, if unconsciously, the entrance door to our occult teachings. For, as he says: —
A “phantom” indeed, which can be made apprehensible only by Occultism. From such scientific metaphysics to Occultism there is hardly one step. Those physicists who hold the view that the atomic constitution of matter is consistent with its penetrability, need not go far out of their way to be able to account for the greatest phenomena of Occultism, now so derided by physical scientists and materialists. Cauchy’s “material points without extension” are Leibnitz’s monads, and at the same time the materials out of which the “Gods” and other invisible powers clothe themselves in bodies (vide infra, “Gods, Monads and Atoms”). The disintegration and reintegration of “material” particles without extension as a chief factor in phenomenal manifestations ought to suggest themselves very easily as a clear possibility, at any rate to those few scientific minds which accept M. Cauchy’s views. For, disposing of that property of matter which they call impenetrability by simply regarding the atoms as “material points exerting on each other attractions and repulsions which vary with the distances that separate them” — the French theorist explains that: “From this it follows that, if it pleased the author of nature  simply to modify the laws according to which the atoms attract or repel each other, we might instantly see the hardest bodies penetrating each other, the smallest particles of matter occupying immense spaces, or the largest masses reducing themselves to the smallest volumes, the entire universe concentrating itself, as it were, in a single point.” (Sept lecons de physique Generale, p. 38 et seq., ed. Moigno.)
And that “point,” invisible on our plane of perception and matter, is quite visible to the eye of the adept who can follow and see it present on other planes.
The corpuscular theory has been unceremoniously put aside; but gravitation — the principle that all bodies attract each other with a force proportional directly to their masses, and inversely to the squares of the distances between them — survives to this day and reigns, supreme as ever, in the alleged ethereal waves of Space. As a hypothesis, it had been threatened with death for its inadequacy to embrace all the facts presented to it; as a physical law, it is the King of the late and once all-potent “Imponderables.” “It is little short of blasphemy . . . . an insult to Newton’s grand memory to doubt it, . . . .” is the exclamation of an American reviewer of “Isis Unveiled.” Well; what is finally that invisible and intangible God in whom we should believe on blind faith? Astronomers who see in gravitation an easy-going solution for many things, and an universal force which allows them to calculate thereby planetary motions, care little about the Cause of Attraction. They call Gravity a law, a cause in itself. We call the forces acting under that name effects, and very secondary effects, too. One day it will be found that the scientific hypothesis does not answer after all; and then it will follow the corpuscular theory of light and be consigned to rest for many scientific aeons in the archives of all exploded speculations. Has not Newton himself expressed grave doubts about the Nature of Force and the corporeality of the “Agents,” as they were then called? So has Cuvier, another scientific light shining in the night of research. He warns his readers, in the Revolution du Globe, about the doubtful nature of the so-called Forces, saying that “it is not so sure whether those agents were not Spiritual Powers after all (des agents spirituels). At the outset of his “Principia,” Sir Isaac Newton took the greatest care to impress upon his school that he did not use the word “attraction” with regard to the mutual action of bodies in a physical sense. To him it was, he said, a purely mathematical conception involving no consideration of real and primary physical causes. In one of the passages of his “Principia” (Defin. 8, B. I. Prop. 69, “Scholium”), he tells us plainly that, physically considered, attractions are rather impulses. In section XI. (Introduction) he expresses the opinion that “there is some subtle spirit by the force and action of which all movements of matter are determined” (see Mod. Mater., by Rev. W. F. Wilkinson); and in his third Letter to Bentley he says: “It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact, as it must do if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. . . . That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers.”
At this, even Newton’s contemporaries got frightened — at the apparent return of occult causes into the domain of physics. Leibnitz called his principle of attraction “an incorporeal and inexplicable power.” The supposition of an attractive faculty and a perfect void was characterized by Bernoulli as “revolting,” the principle of actio in distans finding thus no more favour then than it does now. Euler, on the other hand, thought the action of gravity was due to either a Spirit or some subtle medium. And yet Newton knew of, if he did not accept, the Ether of the Ancients. He regarded the intermediate space between the sidereal bodies as vacuum. Therefore he believed in “subtle spirit” and Spirits as we do, guiding the so-called attraction. The above-quoted words of the great man have produced poor results. The “absurdity” has now become a dogma in the case of pure materialism, which repeats, “No matter without force, no force without matter; matter and force are inseparable, eternal and indestructible (true); there can be no independent force, since all force is an inherent and necessary property of matter (false); consequently, there is no immaterial creative power.” Oh, poor Sir Isaac!
If, leaving aside all the other eminent men of Science who shared in the same opinion as Euler and Leibnitz, the Occultists claim as their authorities and supporters only Sir Isaac Newton and Cuvier, as above cited, they need fear little from modern Science, and may loudly and proudly proclaim their beliefs. But, the hesitation and doubts of the two before cited authorities, and of many others, too, whom we could name, did not in the least prevent scientific speculation from wool-gathering on the fields of brute matter just as before. First it was matter and an imponderable fluid distinct from it; then came the imponderable fluid so much criticised by Grove; and AEther, which was at first discontinuous and then became continuous; after which came the “mechanical” Forces. These have now settled in life as “modes of motion” and the aether has become more mysterious and problematical than ever. More than one man of Science objects to such crude materialistic views. But then since the days of Plato, who repeatedly asks his readers not to confuse incorporeal Elements with their Principles — transcendental or spiritual Elements; from those of the great Alchemists, who, like Paracelsus, made a great difference between phenomenon and its cause, or the Noumenon; and Grove, who, though he sees “no reason to divest universally diffused matter of the functions common to all matter,” yet uses the term Forces where his critics, “who do not attach to the word any idea of a specific action,” say Force — from those days to this nothing has proved competent to stem the tide of brutal materialism. Gravitation is the sole cause, the acting God, and matter is its prophet, said the men of science only a few years ago.
They have changed their views several times since then. But do the men of Science understand the innermost thought of Newton, one of the most spiritual-minded and religious men of his day, any better now than they did then? It is certainly to be doubted. Newton is credited with having given the death-blow to the Elemental Vortices of Descartes (the idea of Anaxagoras, resurrected, by-the-bye), though the last modern “vortical atoms” of Sir W. Thomson do not, in truth, differ much from the former. Nevertheless, when his disciple Forbes wrote in the Preface to the chief work of his Master a sentence declaring that “attraction was the cause of the System,” Newton was the first to solemnly protest. That which in the mind of the great mathematician assumed the shadowy, but firmly rooted image of God, as the noumenon of all,  was called more philosophically by the ancient (and modern) philosophers and Occultists — “Gods,” or the creative fashioning Powers. The modes of expression may have been different, and the ideas more or less philosophically enunciated by all sacred and profane Antiquity; but the fundamental thought was the same.  For Pythagoras the Forces were Spiritual Entities, Gods independent of planets and Matter as we see and know them on Earth, who are the rulers of the Sidereal Heaven. Plato represented the planets as moved by an intrinsic Rector, one with his dwelling, like “A boatman in his boat.” As for Aristotle, he called those rulers “immaterial substances;”  though as one who had never been initiated, he rejected the gods as Entities (See Vossius, Vol. II., p. 528). But this did not prevent him from recognising the fact that the stars and planets “were not inanimate masses but acting and living bodies indeed. . . . . . .” As if “sidereal spirits were the divine portion of their phenomena, [[ta theoitera pon phaneron]]” (De Caelo. I. 9).
If we look for corroboration in more modern and Scientific times, we find Tycho Brahe recognising in the stars a triple force, divine, spiritual and vital. Kepler, putting together the Pythagorean sentence, “The Sun, guardian of Jupiter,” and the verses of David, “He placed his throne in the Sun,” and “The Lord is the Sun,” etc., said that he understood perfectly how the Pythagoreans could believe that all the globes disseminated through Space were rational Intelligences, facultates ratiocinativae, circulating around the Sun, “in which resides a pure Spirit of fire; the source of the general harmony” (De Motibus planetarum harmonicis, p. 248).
When an Occultist speaks of Fohat — the energising and guiding intelligence in the Universal Electric or Vital Fluid, — he is laughed at. Withal, as now shown, neither the nature of electricity, nor of Life nor even of Light, are to this day understood. The Occultist sees in the manifestation of every force in Nature, the action of the quality, or the special characteristic of its noumenon; which noumenon is a distinct and intelligent Individuality on the other side of the manifested mechanical Universe. Now the Occultist does not deny — on the contrary he will support the claim — that light, heat, electricity and so on are affections (not properties or qualities) of matter. To put it more clearly: matter is the condition — the necessary basis or vehicle, a sine qua non — for the manifestation of these forces, or agents, on this plane.
But in order to gain the point the Occultists have to examine the credentials of the law of gravity, first of all, of “Gravitation, the King and Ruler of Matter,” under every form. To do so effectually, the hypothesis in its earliest appearance has to be recalled to mind. To begin with, is it Newton who was the first to discover it? The Athenaeum of Jan. 26, 1867, has some curious information upon this subject. It says that “positive evidence can be adduced that Newton derived all his knowledge of gravitation and its laws from Boehme, with whom gravitation or attraction is the first property of Nature.” . . . For with him “his (Boehme’s) system, shows us the inside of things, while modern physical science is content with looking at the outside.” Then again, “the science of electricity, which was not yet in existence when he (Boehme) wrote, is there anticipated (in his writings); and not only does Boehme describe all the now known phenomena of that force, but he even gives us the origin, generation, and birth of electricity, itself, etc.”
Thus Newton, whose profound mind read easily between the lines, and fathomed the spiritual thought of the great Seer in its mystic rendering, owes his great discovery to Jacob Boehme, the nursling of the genii (Nirmanakayas) who watched over and guided him, of whom the author of the article in question so truly remarks, that “every new scientific discovery goes to prove his profound and intuitive insight into the most secret workings of nature.” And having discovered gravity, Newton, in order to render possible the action of attraction in space, had, so to speak, to annihilate every physical obstacle capable of impeding its free action; ether among others, though he had more than a presentiment of its existence. Advocating the corpuscular theory, he made an absolute vacuum between the heavenly bodies. . . . Whatever may have been his suspicions and inner convictions about Ether; however many friends he may have unbosomed himself to — as in the case of his correspondence with Bentley — his teachings never showed that he had any such belief. If he was “persuaded that the power of attraction could not be exerted by matter across a vacuum,”  how is it that so late as 1860, French astronomers (Le Couturier, for instance), combated “the disastrous results of the theory of vacuum established by the great man?”  Professor Winchell writes, “These passages (letter to Bentley) show what were his views respecting the nature of the interplanetary medium of communication. Though declaring that the heavens ‘are void of sensible matter,’ he elsewhere excepted ‘perhaps some very thin vapours, streams, and effluvia, arising from the atmospheres of the earth, planets, and comets, and from such an exceedingly rare ethereal medium as we have elsewhere described.” (Newton, Optics, III., query 28, 1704; quoted in “World-Life.”)
This only shows that even such great men as Newton have not always the courage of their opinions. Dr. T. S. Hunt “called attention to some long-neglected passages in Newton’s works, from which it appears that a belief in such universal, intercosmical medium gradually took root in his mind.” (Ibid.) But such attention was never called to the said passages before Nov. 28, 1881, when Dr. Hunt read his “Celestial Chemistry, from the time of Newton.” “Till then the idea was universal, even among the men of Science, that Newton had, while advocating the corpuscular theory, preached a void,” as Le Couturier says. The passages had been “long neglected,” no doubt because they contradicted and clashed with the preconceived pet theories of the day, till finally the undulatory theory imperiously required the presence of an “ethereal medium” to explain it. This is the whole secret.
Anyhow, it is from that theory of Newton’s of a universal void — taught, if not believed in by himself, — that dates the immense scorn now shown by modern for ancient physics. The old sages had maintained that “Nature abhorred vacuum,” and the greatest mathematicians of the world (read of the Western races) had discovered the antiquated “fallacy” and exposed it. And now modern science vindicates, however ungracefully, archaic knowledge, having, moreover, to vindicate Newton’s character and powers of observation at this late hour, after having neglected for one century and a half to pay any attention to such very important passages — perchance, because it was wiser not to attract any notice to them. Better late than never.
And now Father AEther is re-welcomed with open arms; and wedded to gravitation; linked to it for weal or woe, until the day when it, or both, shall be replaced by something else. Three hundred years ago it was plenum everywhere, then it became one dismal vacuity; later still the sidereal ocean-beds, dried up by science, rolled onward once more their ethereal waves. Recede ut procedes must become the motto of exact Science — “exact,” chiefly, in finding itself inexact every leap-year.
But we will not quarrel with the great men. They had to go back to the earliest “Gods of Pythagoras and old Kanada” for the very backbone and marrow of their correlations and “newest” discoveries, and this may well afford good hope to the Occultists, for their minor gods. For we believe in Le Couturier’s prophecy about gravitation. We know the day is approaching when an absolute reform will be demanded in the present modes of Science by the scientists themselves — as was done by Sir W. Grove, F.R.S. Till that day there is nothing to be done. For if gravitation were dethroned to-morrow, the day after the Scientists would discover some other new mode of mechanical motion.  Rough and up-hill is the path of true Science, and its days are full of vexation of Spirit. But in the face of its “thousand” contradictory hypotheses to explain physical phenomena, there never was yet a better one than that of “motion” — however paradoxically interpreted by materialism. As may be found on the first pages of Book I., Occultists have nothing surely against motion  the great breath of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s “unknown.” But, believing that everything on Earth is the shadow of something in space — they believe in smaller “Breaths,” which, living, intelligent and independent of all but Law, blow in every direction during Manvantaric periods. These Science will reject. But whatever replaces attraction, alias gravitation, the result will be the same. Science will be as far from the solution of its difficulties as it is now, unless it comes to some compromise with Occultism and even with Alchemy — which supposition will be regarded as an impertinence, but remains a fact, nevertheless. As Faye says: “Il manque quelque chose aux geologues pour faire la geologie de la Lune, c’est d’etre astronomes. A la verite il manque aussi quelquechose aux astronomes pour aborder avec fruit cette etude, c’est d’etre geologues.” But he might have added, with still more pointedness, “Ce qui manque a tous les deux, c’est l’intuition du mystique.”
Let us remember Sir William Grove’s wise “concluding remarks,” on the ultimate structure of matter, or the minutiae of molecular actions, which, he thought, man will never know.
And then the learned gentleman states a purely occult tenet: —
Thus, supposing attraction or gravitation should be given up in favour of the Sun being a huge magnet — which is a theory already accepted by some physicists — a magnet that acts on the planets as attraction is now supposed to do, whereto, or how much farther would it lead the astronomers from where they are now? Not an inch farther. Kepler came to this “curious hypothesis” nearly 300 years ago. He had not discovered the theory of attraction and repulsion in Kosmos, for it was known from the days of Empedocles, the two opposite forces being called by him “hate” and “love” — which comes to the same thing. But Kepler gave a pretty fair description of cosmic magnetism. That such magnetism exists in nature, is as certain as that gravitation does not; not at any rate, in the way in which it is taught by Science, which never took into consideration the different modes in which the dual Force — that Occultism calls attraction and repulsion — may act within our solar system, the earth’s atmosphere, and beyond in the Kosmos.  This was proven by Newton himself; for there are many phenomena in our Solar system, which he confessed his inability to explain by the law of gravitation. “Such were the uniformity in the directions of planetary movements, the nearly circular forms of the orbits, and their remarkable conformity to one plane” (Prof. Winchell). And if there is one single exception, then the law of gravitation has no right to be referred to as an universal law. “These adjustments,” we are told, “Newton, in his general Scholium, pronounces to be ‘the work of an intelligent and all-powerful Being.’ ” Intelligent that “Being” may be; as to “all-powerful” there would be every reason to doubt the claim. A poor “God” he, who would work upon minor details and leave the most important to secondary forces! The poverty of the argument and logic in this case, is surpassed only by that of Laplace, who, seeking very correctly to substitute motion for Newton’s “all-powerful Being,” and ignorant of the true nature of that eternal motion, saw in it a blind physical law. “Might not those arrangements be an effect of the laws of motion?” he asks, forgetting, as all our modern Scientists do, that this law and this motion are a vicious circle, so long as the nature of both remains unexplained. His famous answer to Napoleon: “Dieu est devenu une hypothese inutile,” would be correctly stated only by one who adhered to the philosophy of the Vedantins. It becomes a pure fallacy, if we exclude the interference of operating, intelligent, powerful (never “all-powerful”) Beings, who are called “gods.”
But we would ask the critics of the mediaeval astronomers why should Kepler be denounced as most unscientific, for offering just the same solution as Newton did — only showing himself more sincere, more consistent and even more logical. Where may be the difference between Newton’s “all-powerful Being” and Kepler’s Rectores, his sidereal and Cosmic Forces, or Angels? Kepler is again criticised for his “curious hypothesis which made use of a vortical movement within the solar system;” for his theories in general, for his favouring Empedocles’ idea of attraction and repulsion, and “Solar magnetism” in particular. Yet several modern men of Science, as will be shown — Hunt (if Metcalfe is to be excluded), Dr. Richardson, etc. — favour the idea very seriously. He is half excused, however, on the plea that “to the time of Kepler no interaction between masses of matter had been distinctly recognized which was generically different from magnetism” (World-Life). Is it distinctly recognised now? Does Prof. Winchell claim for Science any serious knowledge whatever of the natures of either electricity or magnetism — except that both seem to be the effects of some result arising from an undetermined cause.
The ideas of Kepler, weeded from their theological tendencies, are purely occult. He saw that:
(I.) The Sun is a great Magnet.  This is what some eminent modern scientists and also the Occultists believe in.
(II.) The Solar substance is immaterial.  (See “Isis Unveiled,” Vol. I. pp. 270 to 271.)
(III.) He provided, for the constant motion and restoration of the Sun’s energy and planetary motion, the perpetual care of a spirit, or spirits. The whole of Antiquity believed in this idea. The Occultists do not use the word Spirit, but say Creative Forces, which they endow with intelligence. But we may call them spirits also.
This theory is tabooed a great deal more on account of the “Spirit” that is given room in it, than of anything else. Herschell, the elder, believed in it likewise, and so do several modern scientists also. Nevertheless Professor Winchell declares that “a hypothesis more fanciful, and less in accord with the requirements of physical principles, has not been offered in ancient or modern times.” (World-Life, p. 554.)
The same was said, once upon a time, of the universal Ether, and now it is not only accepted perforce but advocated as the only possible theory to explain away certain mysteries.
Grove’s ideas, when he first enunciated them in London about 1840, were called as unscientific as the above; nevertheless, his views on the correlation of forces are now universally accepted. It would, very likely, require one more conversant with science than is the writer, to combat with any success some of the now prevailing ideas about gravitation and other similar “solutions” of Cosmic Mysteries. But, let us recall a few objections that came from recognized men of Science; from astronomers and physicists of eminence, who rejected the theory of rotation, as well as that of gravitation. Thus one reads in the French Encyclopaedia that “Science agrees, in the face of all its representatives, that it is impossible to explain the physical origin of the rotatory motion of the solar system.”
If the question is asked, “what causes rotation?” we are answered: “It is the centrifugal Force.” “And this force, what is it that produces it?” “The force of rotation,” is the grave answer. (Godefroy, Cosmogonie de la Revelation. ) It will be well, perhaps, to examine both these theories as being directly or indirectly connected.
Considering that “final cause is pronounced a chimera, and the first Great Cause is remanded to the Sphere of the Unknown,” as a reverend gentleman justly complains, the number of hypotheses put forward, a nebula in itself, is most remarkable. The profane student is perplexed, and does not know in which of the theories of exact science he has to believe. Here we have hypotheses enough for every taste and power of brain. They are all extracted from a number of scientific volumes.
Current Hypotheses explaining the Origin of Rotation.
Rotation has originated either —
(a) By the collision of nebular masses wandering aimlessly in space; or by attraction, “in cases where no actual impact takes place.”
(b) “By the tangential action of currents of nebulous matter (in the case of an amorphous nebula) descending from higher to lower levels,  or simply by the action of the central gravity of the mass.” 
“It is a fundamental principle in physics that no rotation could be generated in such a mass by the action of its own parts. As well attempt to change the course of a steamer by pulling at the deck railing,” remarks to this Prof. Winchell in “World-Life.”
Hypotheses of the Origin of the Seven Planets and Comets.
(a.) We owe the birth of the Planets (1) to an explosion of the Sun — a parturition of its central mass;  or (2) to some kind of disruption of the nebular rings.
(b) “The Comets are strangers to our planetary system” (La Place). “The Comets are undeniably generated in our Solar system” (Faye).
(c) The “fixed stars are motionless” says one authority. . . . “All the stars are actually in motion” answers another authority. . . “Undoubtedly every star is in motion” (Wolf).
(d) “For over 350,000,000 years, the slow and majestic movement of the Sun around its axis has never for a moment ceased” (Panorama des Mondes, Le Couturier.)
(e) And “the Sun having Alcyone in the Pleiades for the centre of its orbit, consumes 180,000,000 of years in completing its revolution” (Maedler). And also,
(f) That, “the Sun has existed no more than 15,000,000 of years, and will emit heat for no longer than 10,000,000 years more” (Sir W. Thomson’s lecture on “the latent dynamical theory regarding the probable origin, total amount of heat, and duration of the Sun,” 1887).
A few years ago this eminent Scientist was telling the world that the time required for the earth to cool from incipient incrustation to its present state, could not exceed 80,000,000 years ;(Thomson and Tait, Natural Philosophy.) If the encrusted age of the world is only 40 millions, or the half of the duration once allowed, and the Sun’s age only 15 millions, have we to understand that the earth was at one time independent of the Sun?
Since the ages of the Sun, planets, and the Earth, as stated in the many scientific hypotheses of the astronomers and physicists, are given elsewhere (infra), we have said enough to show the disagreement between the ministers of modern Science. Whether we accept the fifteen million years of Sir W. Thomson or the thousand millions of Mr. Huxley, for the rotational evolution of our solar system, it will always come to this; by accepting self-generated rotation for the heavenly bodies composed of inert matter and yet moved by their own internal motion, for millions of years, this teaching of Science amounts to —
(a) An evident denial of that fundamental physical law, which states that “a body in motion tends constantly to inertia, (i.e., to continue in the same state of motion or rest), unless it is stimulated into further action by a superior active force.”
(b.) To an original impulse, which culminates in an unalterable motion, within a resisting ether that Newton had declared incompatible with that motion.
(c.) Universal gravity, which, we are taught, always tends to a centre in rectilinear descent — alone the cause of the revolution of the whole solar system, which is performing an eternal double gyration, each body around its axis and orbit. Another occasional version is: —
(d.) A magnet in the Sun; or, the said revolution due to a magnetic force, which acts, just as gravitation does, in a straight line — varying inversely as the square of the distance. (Coulomb’s Law.)
(e.) The whole acting under invariable and changeless laws, which are, nevertheless, often shown variable, as during some well-known freaks of planets and other bodies, as also when the Comets approach to or recede from the Sun.
(f.) A Motor Force always proportionate to the mass it is acting upon; but independent of the specific nature of that mass, to which it is proportionate; which amounts to saying, as Le Couturier does, that, “without that Force independent from and of quite another nature than the said mass, the latter, were it as huge as Saturn, or as tiny as Ceres, would always fall with the same rapidity” (Musee des Sciences, 15 August, 1857). A mass, furthermore, which derives its weight from the body on which it weighs.
Thus neither Laplace’s perceptions of a solar atmospheric fluid, which would extend beyond the orbits of the planets, nor Le Couturier’s electricity, nor Foucault’s heat (Panorama des Mondes, p. 55), nor this, nor the other, can ever help any of the numerous hypotheses about the origin and permanency of rotation to escape from this squirrel’s wheel, any more than the theory of gravity itself. This mystery is the Procrustean bed of physical Science. If matter is, as now taught, passive, the simplest movement cannot be said to be an essential property of matter — if the latter is simply an inert mass. How, then, can such a complicated movement, compound and multiple, harmonious and equilibrated, lasting in the eternities for millions and millions of years, be attributed simply to its own inherent Force, unless the latter is an intelligence? A physical will is something new — a conception that the ancients would have never entertained, indeed! 
“We talk of the weight of the heavenly bodies,” says an astronomer; “but since it is recognised that weight decreases in proportion to the distance from the centre, it becomes evident that, at a certain distance, that weight must be forcibly reduced to Zero? Were there any attraction there would be equilibrium . . . . And since the modern school recognizes neither a beneath nor an above in universal space, it is not clear what should cause the Earth to fall, were there even no gravitation, nor attraction.” (Cosmographie.)
Methinks the Count de Maistre was right in solving the question in his own theological way. He cuts the Gordian knot by saying: — “The planets rotate because they are made to rotate . . . . . and the modern physical system of the universe is a physical impossibility.” (Soirees.) For did not Herschell say the same thing when he remarked that there is a will needed to impart a circular motion, and another will to restrain it? (Discours, 165.) This shows and explains how a retarded planet is cunning enough to calculate so well its time as to hit off its arrival at the fixed minute. For, if Science sometimes succeeds with its great ingenuity in explaining some of such stoppages, retrograde motions, angles outside the orbits, &c., &c., by appearances resulting from the inequality of their progress and ours in the course of our mutual and respective orbits, we still know that there are others, and “very real and considerable deviations,” according to Herschell, “which cannot be explained except by the mutual and irregular action of those planets and by the perturbing influence of the Sun.”
We understand, however, that there are, besides those little and accidental perturbations, continuous perturbations called “secular” — because of the extreme slowness with which the irregularity increases and affects the relations of the elliptic movement — and that these perturbations can be corrected. From Newton, who found that this world needed repairing very often, down to Reynaud, all say the same. In his Ciel et Terre (p. 28), the latter speaks of —
“. . . . . The orbits described by the planets as being very far from immutable; on the contrary, subject to a perpetual mutation in their position and form,” — all prove gravitation and the peripatetic laws to be as negligent as they are quick to repair their mistakes. The charge as it stands seems to be that “they (the orbits) are alternately widening and narrowing, their great axis lengthens and diminishes, or oscillates at the same time from right to left around the Sun, the plane itself, in which they are situated, raising and lowering itself periodically while pivoting around itself with a kind of tremor. . . .”
To this, De Mirville, who believes in intelligent “workmen” ruling invisibly the solar system — as we do — observes very wittily  . . . . . “Voila certes, a voyage which has little in it of mechanical rigour; at the utmost, one could compare it to a steamer, pulled to and fro and tossed on the waves, retarded or accelerated, all and each of which impediments might put off its arrival indefinitely, were there not the intelligences of a pilot and engineers to catch up the time lost, and to repair the damages. . . . .”
The law of gravity, however, seems to be becoming an obsolete law in starry heaven. At any rate those long-haired sidereal radicals, called comets, appear to be very poor respecters of the majesty of that law, and to beard it quite impudently. Nevertheless, and though presenting in nearly every respect “phenomena not yet fully understood,” comets and meteors are credited by the believers in modern Science with obeying the same laws and consisting of the same matter, “as the Suns, stars and nebulae,” and even “the earth and its inhabitants.” (Laing’s “Modern Science and Modern Thought.”)
This is what one might call taking things on trust, aye, even to blind faith. But exact Science is not to be questioned, and he who rejects the hypotheses imagined by her students — gravitation, for instance — would be regarded as an ignorant fool for it; yet we are told by the just cited author a queer legend from the scientific annals. “The comet of 1811 had a tail 120 millions of miles in length and 25 millions of miles in diameter at the widest part, while the diameter of the nucleus was about 127,000 miles, more than ten times that of the earth.” He tells us, “in order that bodies of this magnitude, passing near the earth, should not affect its motion or change the length of the year by even a single second, their actual substance must be inconceivably rare. . . .” It must be so indeed, yet: —
“. . . . . The extreme tenuity of a comet’s mass is also proved by the phenomenon of the tail, which, as the comet approaches the sun, is thrown out sometimes to a length of 90 millions of miles in a few hours. And what is remarkable, this tail is thrown out against the force of gravity by some repulsive force, probably electrical, so that it always points away from the Sun (!!!) And yet, thin as the matter of comets must be, IT OBEYS THE COMMON LAW OF GRAVITY (!?), and whether the comet revolves in an orbit within that of the outer planets, or shoots off into the abysses of Space, and returns only after hundreds of years, its path is, at each instant, regulated by the same force as that which causes an apple to fall to the ground.” (Ibid, p. 17.)
Science is like Caesar’s wife, and must not be suspected — this is evident. But it can be respectfully criticised, nevertheless. At all events, it may be reminded that “the apple” is a dangerous fruit. For the second time in the history of mankind, it may become the cause of the FALL —this time, of “exact” Science. A comet whose tail defies the law of gravity right in the Sun’s face can hardly be credited with obeying that law.
In a series of scientific works on Astronomy and the nebular theory, written between 1865 and 1866, the present writer, a poor tyro in Science, has counted in a few hours, no less than thirty-nine contradictory hypotheses offered as explanations for the self-generated, primitive rotatory motion of the heavenly bodies. The writer is no astronomer, no mathematician, no scientist; but was obliged to examine these errors in defence of Occultism, in general, and what is still more important, in order to support the occult teachings concerning astronomy and Cosmology. Occultists were threatened with terrible penalties for questioning scientific truths. But now they feel braver — Science is less secure in its “impregnable” position than they were led to expect, and many of its strongholds are built on very shifting sands.
Thus, even this poor and unscientific examination of it was useful, and it was certainly very instructive. We have learned a good many things, in fact, having studied with particular care especially those astronomical data that would be the most likely to clash with our heterodox and “superstitious” beliefs.
So, for instance, we have found there, concerning gravitation, the axial and orbital motions, that synchronous movement having been once overcome, in the early stage — it was enough to originate a rotatory motion till the end of Manvantara. We have also come to know in all the aforesaid combinations of possibilities with regard to incipient rotation — most complicated in every case, — some of the causes to which it may have been due, as well as some others to which it ought and should have been due, but, in some way or other, was not. Among other things, we were informed that incipient rotation may be provoked with equal ease in a mass in igneous fusion, and in one that is characterised by glacial opacity (“Heaven and Earth”). That gravitation is a law which nothing can overcome, but which, nevertheless, is overcome in and out of season by the most ordinary celestial or terrestrial bodies — the tails of impudent comets, for instance. That we owe the universe to the holy creative Trinity, called Inert Matter, Senseless Force and Blind Chance. Of the real essence and nature of any of these three, Science knows nothing, but this is a trifling detail. Ergo, we are told that, when a mass of cosmic or nebular matter — whose nature is unknown (entirely so), and which may be in a state of fusion (Laplace), or dark and cold (Thomson), for “this intervention of heat is itself a pure hypothesis” (Faye) — decides to exhibit its mechanical energy under the form of rotation, it acts in this wise. It (the mass) either bursts into spontaneous conflagration, or it remains inert, tenebrous, and frigid, both states being equally capable of sending it, without any adequate cause, spinning through space for millions of years. Its movements may be retrograde and they may be direct, about a hundred various reasons being offered for both motions, in about as many hypotheses. Anyhow, joining the maze of stars, whose origin belongs to the same miraculous and spontaneous order — for “the nebular theory does not profess to discover the origin of things, but only a stadium in material history” (Winchell: World-Life) — those millions of suns, planets, and satellites, composed of inert matter, will whirl on in most impressive and majestic symmetry around the firmament, moved and guided only, their inertia notwithstanding, “by their own internal motion.”
Shall we wonder after this if learned mystics, pious Roman Catholics, and even such learned astronomers as were Chaubard and Godefroy,  have preferred the Kabala and the ancient systems to the modern dreary and contradictory exposition of the Universe? The Zohar makes a distinction, at any rate, between “the hajaschar (“the light Forces”), the hachoser (“Reflected Lights”), and the simple phenomenal exteriority of their spiritual types.” (See Kabala Denudata, II, 67.)
The question of “gravity” may now be dismissed, and other hypotheses examined. That physical Science knows nothing of “Forces” is clear. We may close the argument, however, by calling to our help one more man of Science — Professor Jaumes, Member of the Academy of Medicine at Montpellier. Says this learned man, speaking of Forces: —
“A cause is that which is essentially acting in the genealogy of phenomena, in every production as in every modification. I said that activity (or Force) was invisible. . . . To suppose it corporeal and residing in the properties of matter would be a gratuitous hypothesis. . . To reduce all the causes to God. . . . would amount to embarrassing oneself with a hypothesis hostile to many verities. But to speak of a plurality of forces proceeding from the Deity and possessing inherent powers of their own, is not unreasonable. . . . and I am disposed to admit phenomena produced by intermediate agents called Forces or Secondary Agents. The distinction of Forces is the principle of the division of Sciences; so many real and separate forces, so many mother-Sciences. . . . No: Forces are not suppositions and abstractions, but realities, and the only acting realities whose attributes can be determined with the help of direct observation and induction.” (“Sur la distinction des Forces,” published in the Memoires de l’Academie des Sciences de Montpellier, Vol. II., fasc. I., 1854.)
PHYSICS OR METAPHYSICS?
If there is anything on earth like progress, 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 then turn to the occult teachings. It has done so already, however altered are the title-page and revised editions of the Scientific Catechism. It is now over half a century since, in comparing modern with ancient thought, it has been 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 other eminent men of Science. Atoms, Ether, evolution itself — all comes to modern Science from ancient notions, all is 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 found in the exotericism of the classical Greek writers. Yet, if we believe Mr. Tyndall, even Faraday was an Aristotelean, and an Agnostic more than a materialist. In his “Faraday, as a Discoverer” (p. 123) 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 has 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 as inorganic, or dead matter, in nature. Is anything dead or inorganic capable of transformation or change? Occultism asks. And is there anything under the sun which remains immutable or changeless?
This fallacy is nowhere better illustrated than in the scientific work of a German savant, Professor Philip Spiller (Der Weltaether als Kosmische Kraft). 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 power to act at a distance” (p. 4). 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” (unkoerperlicher 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 that of scientific terms. Then this “stuff” is identified and connected by Spiller with the aether. Expressed in occult language it might be said with more correctness that this “force-substance” is the ever-active phenomenal positive aether — prakriti; while the omnipresent all pervading ether is the noumenon of the former, the substratum of all, or Akasa. 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 — aether is the source and cause.
Therefore Spiller, with all his mistakes, exhibits more intuition than any other modern Scientist, with the exception of Dr. Richardson, perhaps, the theorist on the “nerve force,” or Nervous Ether, also on “Sun Force and Earth Force.”  For AEther, in Esotericism, is the very quintessence of all possible energy, and it is certainly to this universal agent (composed of many agents) that all the manifestations of energy in the material, psychic and spiritual worlds are due.
What are Electricity and Light, in fact? How can Science know that one is a fluid and the other a “mode of motion”? Why is it not made clear why a difference should be made between them, since both are considered force-correlations. Electricity is a fluid, we are told, immaterial and non-molecular (though Helmholtz thinks otherwise), and the proof of it is that we can bottle it up, accumulate 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 demonstrated by Professor 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, etc., etc. . . . .”
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 through 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 the effect only 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 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 would be laughed at. But yet, when the physicist said that Electricity, stored up, was a fluid, or that light fixed on paper is still Sunlight — this is Science.  In the opinion of an experienced Occultist, one who has verified the whole series of Nidanas, 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, 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, that day is fast approaching when it will be confessed that the “forces” we know of 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, however, which ought to have become the motto of Science, but has not. Sir W. 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.  (See Buckwell’s “Electric Science.”)
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 premises, and are as apt to confuse the effects as they do the causes. It is incorrect, for instance, to say, as Stallo does, that “matter can no more be realized or conceived as mere spacial 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”  — 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” (p. 161).
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 (Princ. Def. iii.), and for the student of Esoteric Sciences the greatest of the occult forces. A body may be considered divorced from its relations with other bodies — which, according to physical and mechanical sciences, give rise to its attributes — only conceptually, only on this plane of illusion. 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: but simply continues such inter-relation on another plane. But what, if Stallo is right, can Dr. James Croll mean when, in speaking “On the Transformation of Gravity” (Philosophical Magazine, Vol. II., p. 252), 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. . . . .”
No one will deny that a force (whether gravity, electricity, or any other force) which exists outside of the bodies and in open space — be it ether or 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 Theorie Mecanique 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 re-adopt 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 “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 made that there are two distinct schools of physicists, by one of which “the force is assumed to be an independent substantial entity, which is not a property of matter nor is it essentially related to matter,”  is hardly likely to help the profane to any clearer understanding. It is, on the contrary, still more calculated to throw the question into 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,”  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 one way, and for those of the rival school in another way. 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,
This shows that either modern chemistry or modern physics is entirely wrong in its respective fundamental principles. For if the assumption of atoms of different specific gravities on the basis of the atomic theory in physics is deemed absurd, and chemistry meets, nevertheless, on its opposite basis (in the question of the formation and transformation of chemical compounds) with “unfailing experimental verification,” then it becomes apparent that it is the atomo-mechanical theory which is untenable. The explanations 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,” are 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 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; the evolution of which the Eastern Occultist, who follows this scientific strife, beholds in the greatest bewilderment.
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 of 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 property.” (Wundt, “Die Theorie der Materie,” p. 381.)
“Chemistry in its ultimate form must be atomic mechanics.” (Nazesmann, “Thermochemie,” p. 150.)
And a moment after he is told that:
“Gases consist of atoms which behave like solid, perfectly elastic spheres.” (Kroenig, Clausius, Maxwell, etc., Philosophical Magazine, Vol. XIX., p. 18.)
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.” (!!!) (“Philosophical Magazine,” p. 321, loc. cit.)
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 their personal vanity to dogmatise on anything, as the majority do. There are several among them — perhaps more than dare publish openly 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 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 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. Neither do the Occultists deny the correctness of the vibratory theory.  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.  Mr. Clerk Maxwell has stated that the pressure of strong sunlight on a square mile is about 3 1/4 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 stated more than once before now — 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, as asserted by Science, set up 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., etc., in MATTER existing in super-sensuous 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 Sushumna ray — the first of the Seven Mystic rays of the Sun. 
Thus, we put forward the Occult teaching which maintains the reality of a supersubstantial and supersensible essence of that Akasa (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.  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 motions.
(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 the latter 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 laws, simply because that Science, justly referred to by philosophy as the “divine,” was born on higher planes, and was brought on 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 Hindu initiated Yogi 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 Sushumna ray believed to be that ray which furnishes the moon with its borrowed light? Why is it “the ray cherished by the initiated Yogi?” Why is the moon held as the deity of the mind, by those Yogis? We say, because light, or rather all its occult properties, every combination and correlation of it with other forces, mental, psychic, and spiritual, were perfectly known to the old adepts.
Therefore, although, in its knowledge of the ultimate constitution of matter, or in the so-called ultimate analysis as opposed to the proximate in chemistry, occult science may be less well-informed as to the behaviour of compound elements in various cases of physical correlations: still, 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 our Academies of Science, all taken together, possess, 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 motions; 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, are either solids, gases, or fluids. 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.
“What is Force?” argues this great man of Science, “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.  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 laya state,  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.” (“Scientific Letters,” Professor Butlerof.)
We are assured that real science is not materialistic; and our own conviction tells us that it cannot be so, when its learning is real. There is a good reason for it, 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 latter probably unconsciously — and several others, have proved it. And it is, furthermore, demonstrated by the fact, that Kanada in India, and Leucippus, Democritus, 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 in 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 fullness, of atoms and vacuity. Even leaving aside the axiom — now absolutely demonstrated by telescope and microscope — taught by the ancients, that nature abhors vacuum, what is an atom? “It is, we are answered by Science,” writes Professor Butlerof, “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, a 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.” Buchner, 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.
This is sufficient to show how absurd are the simultaneous admissions of the non-divisibility and 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 is possible for it out of the dilemma. 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.”  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 undreamt of by the most spiritually disposed chemists and physicists.
The above views were enunciated by an Academician, the greatest chemist in Russia, and a recognised 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 Zollner, and Hare did, as Mr. A. Russell 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 apply 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 they (the Scientists) have hitherto become acquainted. The most science can do is to assume the attitude of agnosticism and to maintain it. 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 that which lies at the bottom of the so-called correlations of Forces. Therefore, time alone can prove who is right and who is wrong. Let us wait patiently, and meanwhile show 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. To blend 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 meant are 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 Puranas, under allegories comprehensible only to the Initiates. Had they no meaning, then indeed all those 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 Brahma 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 the 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 Puranas, where (as in the Vayu Purana) many of the qualities of the personified fires are explained. Thus, Pavaka is electric, or Vaidyuta, fire; Pavamana, the fire produced by friction, (or Nirmathya): and Suchi is solar (or Saura) fire  — all these three being the sons of Abhimanin, the Agni (fire), eldest son of Brahma and of Swaha. Pavaka, moreover, is made parent to Kavyavahana, the fire of the Pitris: Suchi to Havyavahana — the fire of the gods; and Pavamana, to Saharaksha, the fire of the Asuras. Now all this shows that the writers of the Puranas were perfectly conversant with the “Forces” of Science and their correlations; moreover, with the various qualities of the latter in their bearing upon those psychic and physical phenomena which receive no credit and are unknown to physical science now. 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 “Tantrika 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 known. So little credit, indeed, is given to the ancient Aryans for knowledge, that even such glaring passages as in Book I. chap. ii, Vishnu Purana, 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 other qualities, existed as distinguishable according to their properties, . . . . 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 . . . they assumed through mutual association, the character of one mass of entire unity; and directed by Spirit . . .” etc. This means, of course, that the writers were perfectly acquainted with correlation and were well posted about the origin of Kosmos from the “undiscrete Principle” — Avyaktanugrahena, as applied to Parabrahmam and Mulaprakriti 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 the protyle, as Mr. Crookes has suggestively named matter, or primordial substance beyond the zero-line: — there where we place Mulaprakriti, 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 Visishtadwaita Vedantins, an orthodox and exoteric system, yet fully enunciated and taught in the XIth century (its founder, Ramanujacharya, being born in A.D. 1017), 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 absolute homogeneity, as “matter exists in two conditions, the sukshma, or latent and undifferentiated, and the sthula or differentiated condition.” Then it became anu, atomic. It teaches of Sudda-satwa — “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 inhabitants of Vaikuntaloka (the heaven of Vishnu), the gods, are formed. That every particle or atom of Prakriti contains Jiva (divine life), and is the sarira (body) of that Jiva which it contains, while every Jiva is in its turn the sarira of the supreme spirit, as “Parabrahm pervades every Jiva, as well as every particle of matter.” Dualistic and anthropomorphic as may be the philosophy of the Visishtadwaita, when compared with that of the Adwaita — the non-dualists, — it is yet supremely higher in logic and philosophy than the cosmogony accepted by either Christianity, or its great opponent, modern Science. The followers of one of the greatest minds that ever appeared on Earth, the Adwaita Vedantins are called Atheists, because they regard all save Parabrahm, the secondless, or Absolute Reality — as an illusion. Yet the wisest Initiates came from their ranks, as also the greatest Yogis. 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 acquainted with the noumena of every spiritual as well as of every cosmic phenomenon.
Truly the young Brahmin 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 sciences; 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 Puranas, 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 Pururavas and the celestial Gandharva,  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 Tretagni (sacred triad of fires) obtained by the attrition of sticks made of the wood of the Aswattha tree (the Bo-tree, of Wisdom and Knowledge) — sticks “as many finger-breaths long as there are syllables in the gayatri” must have a secret meaning, or else the writers of the Vedas and Puranas 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 threefold (treta) in our present Manvantara, by the Son of Ila (Vach), the primeval woman after the Deluge, the wife and daughter of Vaivasvata Manu. The allegory is suggestive, in whatever Purana it may be read and studied.
The wise words of several (English) men of Science have now to be quoted in our favour. Ostracised for “principle’s sake” by the few, they are tacitly approved of by the many. That one of them preaches almost Occult doctrines, in some things identical with, and often amounting to a public recognition of our “Fohat and his seven Sons” — the Occult Gandharva of the Vedas — will be recognised by every Occultist, and even by some profane readers.
If the latter open Volume V. of the Popular Science Review (pp. 329-334), they will find in it an article on “Sun Force and Earth Force,” by Dr. B. W. Richardson, F.R.S., which reads as follows: —
This, of course, is almost the occult explanation of cohesion. Dr. Richardson continues: —
Having thus quoted at length the heterodox views of the great “heretic” — views that need only a little alteration of terms here and there, the same eminent scientist — an original and liberal thinker, undeniably — proceeds to sum up those views, and continues: —
Thus we find that Ether and elastic atoms are, in the alleged mechanical conception of the Universe, the Spirit and Soul of Kosmos, and that the theory — put it any way and under whatever disguise — always leaves a more widely opened issue for men of Science to speculate beyond the line drawn by modern materialism — or call it agnosticism rather, to be more correct  — than the majority avails itself of. Atoms, Ether, or both, modern speculation cannot get out of the circle of ancient thought; and the latter was soaked through with archaic occultism. Undulatory or corpuscular theory — it is all one. It is speculation from the aspects of phenomena, not from the knowledge of the essential nature of the cause and causes. When modern Science has explained to its audience the late achievements of Bunsen and Kirchoff, and shown the seven colours, the “primary” of a ray which is decomposed in a fixed order on a screen; and described the respective lengths of luminous waves, what has it proved? It has justified its reputation for exactness in mathematical achievement by measuring even the length of a luminous wave — “varying from about seven hundred and sixty millionths of a millimetre at the red end of the spectrum to about three hundred and ninety-three millionths of a millimetre at the violet end.” But when the exactness of the calculation with regard to the effect on the light-wave is thus vindicated, Science is forced to admit that the force (which is the supposed cause) is believed to produce “inconceivably minute undulations” in some medium — “generally regarded as identical with the ethereal medium”  — and that medium itself is still only — a “hypothetical agent!”
Auguste Comte’s pessimism with respect to the impossibility of knowing some day the chemical composition of the sun, has not been belied thirty years later by Kirchoff, as claimed. The spectroscope has helped us to see that the elements, with which the modern chemist is familiar, must in all probability be present in the sun’s outward robes — not in the sun itself; and, taking these “robes,” the solar cosmic veil, for the sun itself, the physicists have declared its luminosity to be due to combustion and flame, and have mistaken the vital principle of that luminary for a purely material thing, and called it “chromosphere.”  We have hypotheses and theories only so far, not law — by any means.
The imponderable fluids have had their day; “mechanical Forces” are less talked about; Science has put on a new face for this last quarter of a century; but gravitation has remained, owing its life to new combinations after the old ones had nearly killed it. It may answer scientific hypotheses very well, but the question is whether it answers as well to truth, and represents a fact in nature. Attraction by itself is not sufficient to explain merely planetary motion; how can it presume to explain the rotatory motion in the infinitudes of Space? Attraction alone will never fill all the gaps, unless a special impulse is admitted for every sidereal body, and the rotation of every planet with its satellites is shown to be due to some one cause combined with attraction. And even then, says an astronomer (“Philosophie Naturelle,” art. 142), Science would have to name that cause.
Occultism has named it for ages, and so have all the ancient philosophers; but then all such beliefs are now proclaimed exploded superstitions. The “extra cosmic” God has killed every possibility of belief in intra cosmic intelligent Forces, yet who, or what is the original pusher in that motion? “When we have learned the cause, unique et speciale, that pushes, we will be ready to combine it with the one which attracts,” says Francoeur (“Astronomie,” p. 342). And again — “Attraction between the celestial bodies is only repulsion: it is the Sun that drives them incessantly onward; for otherwise, their motion would stop.”
If ever this theory of the Sun-Force being the primal cause of all life on earth and motion in heaven is accepted, and if that other far bolder one of Herschell — about certain organisms in the Sun — is accepted even as a provisional hypothesis, then will our teachings be vindicated, and esoteric allegory shown to have anticipated Modern Science by millions of years, probably, for these are the Archaic teachings. Marttanda (the Sun) watches and threatens — without abandoning the central position to which his Mother, Aditi, relegated him — his seven brothers, the planets; “he pursues them, turning slowly around himself . . . and follows them from afar, moving in the same direction that they do, on the path that encircles their houses” — or the orbit. (See Comment to Stanza IV., Book I.) It is the Sun-fluids or Emanations that impart all motion and awaken all into life, in the Solar System. It is attraction and repulsion, but not as understood by modern physics and according to the law of gravity; but in harmony with the laws of Manvantaric motion designed from the early Sandhya, the Dawn of the rebuilding and higher reformation of the System. These laws are immutable; but the motion of all the bodies, which motion is diverse and alters with every minor Kalpa — is regulated by the Movers, the Intelligences within the Cosmic Soul. Are we so very wrong in believing all this? Well, here is a modern and a great man of Science who, speaking of vital electricity, uses language far more akin to Occultism than to modern materialistic thought. We refer the sceptical reader to an article on “The Source of Heat in the Sun,” by Robert Hunt , F.R.S., (in “Popular Science Review,” Vol. IV., p. 148), who, speaking of the luminous envelope of the Sun and its “peculiar curdy appearance,” says: —
Solar “flames” seen through telescopes are reflections, says Occultism. But see what Occultists have to say to this in Book I.
Occultism answers these queries in the affirmative; and Science will find this to be the case, one day.
Again, on p. 156, Mr. Hunt writes: —
Thus, we have an important scientific corroboration for one of our fundamental dogmas — namely, that (a) the Sun is the store-house of Vital Force, which is the Noumenon of Electricity; and (b) that it is from its mysterious, never-to-be-fathomed depths, that issue those life currents which thrill through Space, as through the organisms of every living thing on Earth. For see what another eminent physician says, who calls this (our life-fluid) “nervous Ether.” Change a few sentences in the article, extracts from which now follow, and you have another quasi-Occult treatise on Life Force. This once, it is again Dr. B. W. Richardson, F.R.S., who gives his views in the “Popular Science Review,” Vol. X., p. 380-3, on “Nervous Ether,” as he has on “Sun-Force” and “Earth-Force”: —
And the whole Solar System falls into Pralaya —the author might have added. But let us read further:
A new flood of light is certainly thrown on the wisdom of ancient and mediaeval Occultism and its votaries. For Paracelsus wrote the same thing more than three hundred years ago, namely, in the sixteenth century, as follows: —
“The whole of the Microcosm is potentially contained in the Liquor Vitae, a nerve fluid . . . in which is contained the nature, quality, character, and essence of beings.” . . . (De Generatione Hominis). . . . “The Archaeus or Liquor Vitae is an essence that is equally distributed in all parts of the human body. . . . The Spiritus Vitae takes its origin from the Spiritus Mundi. Being an emanation of the latter, it contains the elements of all cosmic influences, and is therefore the cause by which the action of the stars (cosmic forces) upon the invisible body of man (his vital lingasharira) may be explained.” (De Viribus Membrorum. See “Life of Paracelsus” by Franz Hartmann, M.D., F.T.S.)
Had Dr. Richardson studied all the secret works of Paracelsus, he would not have been obliged to confess so often — “we do not know” . . . . “it is not known to us” . . . . etc., etc. Nor would he have ever pronounced the following sentence, recanting the best portions of his independent rediscovery, in which he says (p. 384): —
We fail to see it, and we know it is not so. Pantheism may be “physically rediscovered.” It was known, seen, and felt by the whole of antiquity. Pantheism manifests itself in the vast expanse of the starry heavens, in the breathing of the seas and oceans and the quiver of life of the smallest blade of grass. Philosophy rejects one finite and imperfect God in the universe, as the anthropomorphic deity of the monotheist is represented by his followers. It repudiates in its name of Philo-Theo-Sophia the grotesque idea that Infinite, Absolute Deity should, or rather could, have any, whether direct or indirect, relation to finite illusive evolutions of matter, and therefore cannot imagine a universe outside that Deity, or the latter absent from the smallest speck of animate or inanimate substance.  Why either the Ether of Space, or “nervous Ether” should “destroy the individuality of every sense” seems incomprehensible for one acquainted with the real nature of that “nervous ether” under its Sanskrit, or rather esoteric and Kabalistic name. Dr. Richardson agrees that —
This is not so. The opinion that “Pantheism fails to be true because it would destroy the individuality of every individual sense” shows that all the conclusions of the learned doctor are based on the modern physical theories, though he would fain reform them. But he will find it impossible to do this unless he allows the existence of spiritual senses to replace the gradual atrophy of the physical. “We see and hear,” in accordance (of course in Dr. Richardson’s mind) with the explanations of the phenomena of sight and hearing, by that same materialistic science which postulates that we cannot see and hear otherwise. The Occultists and mystics know better. The Vedic Aryans were as familiar with the mysteries of sound and colour as our physiologists are on the physical plane, but they had mastered the secrets of both on planes inaccessible to the materialist. They knew of a double set of senses; spiritual and material. In a man who is deprived of one or more senses, the remaining become the more developed: e.g., the blind man will recover his sight through the senses of touch, of hearing, etc., and he who is deaf will be able to hear through sight, by seeing audibly the words uttered by the lips and mouth of the speaker. But these are cases that belong to the world of matter still. The spiritual senses, those that act on a higher plane of consciousness are rejected a priori by physiology because the latter is ignorant of the sacred science. It limits the action of ether to vibrations, and, dividing it from air — though air is simply differentiated and compound ether — makes it assume functions to fit in with the special theories of the physiologist. But there is more real science in the teachings of the Upanishads when these are correctly understood, than the Orientalists, who do not understand them at all, are ready to admit. Mental as well as physical correlations of the seven senses (seven on the physical and seven on the mental planes) are clearly explained and defined in the Vedas, and especially in the Upanishad called Anugita: “The indestructible and the destructible, such is the double manifestation of the Self. Of these the indestructible is the existent (the true essence or nature of Self, the underlying principles). The manifestation as an individual (or entity) is called the destructible.” Thus speaks the Ascetic in Anugita; and also: “Every one who is twice-born (initiated) knows such is the teaching of the ancients. . . . . Space is the first entity. . . . . Now Space (Akasa, or the noumenon of Ether) has one quality . . . and that is sound only . . . and the qualities of sound are Shadga, Rishabha, Gandhara, Madhyama, Panchama, and beyond these five Nishada and Dhaivata”; (the Hindu gamut). These seven notes of the scale are the principles of sound. (Vide ch. xxxvi. of Anugita.) The qualities of every Element, as of every sense, are septenary, and to judge and dogmatize on them from their manifestation (likewise sevenfold in itself) on the material or objective plane above is quite arbitrary. For it is only by the Self emancipating itself from these (seven) causes of illusion that one acquires the knowledge (secret wisdom) of the qualities of objects of sense on their dual plane of manifestation — the visible and the invisible. Thus it is said: —
“State this wonderful mystery . . . . . Hear the assignment of causes exhaustively. The nose, and the tongue, and the eye, and the skin, and the ear as the fifth (organ of sense) Mind and Understanding,  these seven (senses) should be understood to be the causes of (the knowledge of their) qualities. Smell, and taste, and colour, sound, and touch as the fifth, the object of the mental operation, and the object of the Understanding (the highest spiritual sense or perception), these seven are causes of action. He who smells, he who eats, he who sees, he who speaks, and he who hears as the fifth, he who thinks, and he who understands, these seven should be regarded as the causes of the agents.  These (the agents) being possessed of qualities (sattwa, rajas, tamas), enjoy their own qualities, agreeable and disagreeable” (Anugita).
Then one reads in the Bhagavadgita (chap. vii.) the Deity (or Krishna) saying: —
“. . . . Only some know me truly. Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Space (or Akasa, AEther), Mind, Understanding and Egoism (or the perception of all the former on the illusive plane). . . This is a lower form of my nature. Know (that there is) another (form of my) nature, and higher than this, which is animate, O you of mighty arms! and by which this Universe is upheld. . . . All this is woven upon me, like numbers of pearls upon a thread (Mundakopanishad, p. 298). . . . I am the taste in the water, O son of Kunti! I am the light of the sun and moon. I am . . . sound (‘i.e., the Occult essence which underlies all these and the other qualities of the various things mentioned,’ Transl.), in space . . . the fragrant smell in the earth, refulgence in the fire . . . etc., etc.”
Truly, then, one should study Occult philosophy before one begins to verify and seek the mysteries of nature on its surface alone, as he alone “who knows the truth about the qualities of nature, who understands the creation of all entities . . . is emancipated” from error. Says the “preceptor”: “Accurately understanding the great tree of which the unperceived (Occult nature, the root of all) is the sprout from the seed (Parabrahmam) which consists of the understanding (Mahat, or the universal intelligent Soul) as its trunk, the branches of which are the great egoism,  in the holes of which are the sprouts, namely, the senses, of which the great (Occult, or invisible) elements are the flower-bunches,  the gross elements (the gross objective matter), the smaller boughs, which are always possessed of leaves, always possessed of flowers . . . . which is eternal and the seed of which is the Brahman (the deity); and cutting it with that excellent sword — knowledge (secret wisdom) — one attains immortality and casts off birth and death.”
This is the Tree of Life, the Asvattha tree, only after the cutting of which the slave of life and death, Man, can be emancipated.
But the men of Science know nought, nor will they hear of the “Sword of Knowledge” used by the adepts and ascetics. Hence the one-sided remarks of the most liberal among them, based on and flowing from undue importance given to the arbitrary divisions and classification of physical science. Occultism heeds them very little, and nature still less. The whole range of physical phenomena proceed from the Primary of Ether — Akasa, as dual-natured Akasa proceeds from undifferentiated Chaos, so-called, the latter being the primary aspect of Mulaprakriti, the root-matter and the first abstract Idea one can form of Parabrahmam. Modern Science may divide its hypothetically conceived ether in as many ways as it likes; the real AEther of Space will remain as it is throughout. It has its seven principles, as all the rest of nature has, and where there was no Ether there would be no sound, as it is the vibrating sound-board in nature in all of its seven differentiations. This is the first mystery the Initiates of old have learned. Our present normal physical senses were (from our present point of view) abnormal in those days of slow and progressive downward evolution and fall into matter. And there was a day when all that which in our modern times is regarded as phenomena, so puzzling to the physiologists now compelled to believe in them — such as thought transference, clairvoyance, clairaudience, etc.; in short, all that which is called now “wonderful and abnormal” — all that and much more belonged to the senses and faculties common to all humanity. We are, however, cycling back and cycling forward; i.e., having lost in spirituality that which we acquired in physical development until almost the end of the Fourth Race, we (mankind) are as gradually and imperceptibly losing now in the physical all that we regain once more in the spiritual re-evolution. This process must go on until the period which will bring the Sixth Root-Race on a parallel line with the spirituality of the Second, long extinct mankind.
But this will hardly be understood at present. We must return to Dr. Richardson’s hopeful though somewhat incorrect hypothesis about “nervous ether.” Under the misleading translation of the word as “Space” (Akasa), it has just been shown in the ancient Hindu system as the “first born” of the One, having but one quality, sound (which is septenary). In esoteric language this “One” is the “Father” Deity, and “Sound” is synonymous with Logos (Verbum, or the Son). Whether consciously or otherwise, it must be the latter; and Dr. Richardson, while preaching an Occult doctrine — chooses the lowest form of the septenary nature of that “sound” and speculates upon it, adding: —
Herein lies the nucleus of error leading to all the resultant mistaken views. This “Nervous Ether” is the lowest principle of the Primordial Essence which is Life. It is animal vitality diffused in all nature and acting according to the conditions it finds for its activity. It is not an “animal product,” but the living animal, the living flower or plant are its products. The animal tissues only absorb it according to their more or less morbid or healthy state — as do physical materials and structures (in their primogenial State — nota bene) — and henceforward, from the moment of the birth of the Entity, are regulated, strengthened, and fed by it. It descends in a larger supply to vegetation in the Sushumna sun-ray which lights and feeds the moon, and it is through her beams that it pours its light upon, and penetrates man and animal, more during their sleep and rest, than when they are in full activity. Therefore Dr. Richardson errs again in stating that: —
Just so; this is quite correct, and as comprehensible. Therefore, “The body fully renewed by it, presents capacity for motion, fulness of form, life. The body bereft of it presents inertia, the configuration of shrunken death, the evidence of having lost something physical that was in it when it lived.”
Modern Science denies the existence of a “vital principle.” This extract is a clear proof of its grand mistake. But this “physical something,” that we call life-fluid — the Liquor Vitae of Paracelsus — has not deserted the body, as Dr. Richardson thinks. It has only changed its state from activity to passivity, and become latent owing to the too morbid state of the tissues, on which it has no more hold. Once the rigor mortis absolute, the “Liquor Vitae” will re-awaken into action, and begin its work on the atoms chemically. Brahma-Vishnu — the creator and the Preserver of Life — will have transformed himself into Siva the Destroyer.
Lastly he writes on p. 387: —
“The nervous Ether may be poisoned; it may, I mean, have diffused through it, by simple gaseous diffusion, other gases or vapours derived from without; it may derive from within products of substances swallowed and ingested, or gases of decomposition produced during disease in the body itself.”
And the learned gentleman might have added on the same Occult principle: “That the ‘nervous Ether’ of one person can be poisoned by the ‘nervous Ether’ of another person or his auric emanations. But see what Paracelsus said of ‘Nervous Ether’ ”: —
“The Archaeus is of a magnetic nature, and attracts or repels other sympathetic or antipathetic forces belonging to the same plane. The less power of resistance for astral influences a person possesses, the more will he be subject to such influences. The vital force is not enclosed in man, but radiates (within) and around him like a luminous sphere (aura) and it may be made to act at a distance. . . . It may poison the essence of life (blood) and cause diseases, or it may purify it after it has been made impure, and restore the health” (Paragranum; “Life of Paracelsus,” by Dr. F. Hartmann.)
That the two, Archaeus and “nervous Ether,” are identical, is shown by the English Scientist, who says that the tension of it generally may be too high or too low; that it may be so “owing to local changes in the nervous matter it invests.” . . . “Under sharp excitation it may vibrate as if in a storm and plunge every muscle under cerebral or spinal control into uncontrolled motion —unconscious convulsions.”
This is called nervous excitation, but no one, except Occultists, knows the reason of such nervous perturbation or explains the primary causes of it. The “principle of Life” may kill when too exuberant, as also when there is too little of it. But this principle on the manifested (or our) plane is but the effect and the result of the intelligent action of the “Host” — collectively, Principle — the manifesting Life and Light. It is itself subordinate to, and emanates from the ever-invisible, eternal and Absolute One Life in a descending and a re-ascending scale of hierarchic degrees — a true septenary ladder, with Sound (or the Logos) at the upper end and the Vidyadharas  (the inferior Pitris) at the lower. Of course, the Occultists are fully aware of the fact that the Vitalist “fallacy,” so derided by Vogt and Huxley, is, nevertheless, still countenanced in very high scientific quarters, and, therefore, they are happy to feel that they do not stand alone. Thus, Professor de Quatrefages writes: —
“It is very true we do not know what life is; but no more do we know what the force is that set the stars in motion. . . . . Living beings are heavy, and therefore subject to gravitation; they are the seat of numerous and various physico-chemical phenomena which are indispensable to their existence, and which must be referred to the action of etherodynamy (electricity, heat, etc.). But these phenomena are here manifested under the influence of another force. . . . . Life is not antagonistic to the inanimate forces, but it governs and rules their action by its laws.” 
a short analysis of the compound and single elements of science as against the occult teachings. how far scientific is this theory, as generally accepted.
In his reply to Dr. Gull’s attack on the theory of vitality (connected inseparably with the Elements of the ancients in the Occult philosophy), Professor Beale, the great physiologist, has a few words as suggestive as they are beautiful: —
“There is a mystery in life — a mystery which has never been fathomed, and which appears greater, the more deeply the phenomena of life are studied and contemplated. In living centres — far more central than the centres seen by the highest magnifying powers, in centres of living matter, where the eye cannot penetrate, but towards which the understanding may tend — proceed changes of the nature of which the most advanced physicists and chemists fail to afford us the conception: nor is there the slightest reason to think that the nature of these changes will ever be ascertained by physical investigation, inasmuch as they are certainly of an order or nature totally distinct from that to which any other phenomenon known to us can be relegated.”
This “mystery,” or the origin of the life essence, Occultism locates in the same centre as the nucleus of prima materia (for they are one) of our Solar system.
“The Sun is the heart of the Solar World (System) and its brain is hidden behind the (visible) Sun. From thence, sensation is radiated into every nerve-centre of the great body, and the waves of the life-essence flow into each artery and vein. . . . The planets are its limbs and pulses. . . .” (Commentary.)
It was stated elsewhere (in the Theosophist) that Occult philosophy denies that the Sun is a globe in combustion, but defines it simply as a world, a glowing sphere, the real Sun being hidden behind, and the visible being only its reflection, its shell. The Nasmyth willow leaves, mistaken by Sir J. Herschell for “Solar inhabitants,” are the reservoirs of solar vital energy, “the vital electricity that feeds the whole system. . . . . The Sun in abscondito being thus the storehouse of our little Kosmos, self-generating its vital fluid, and ever receiving as much as it gives out,” and the visible Sun only a window cut into the real Solar palace and presence, which reflects, however, faithfully the interior work.
Thus, there is a regular circulation of the vital fluid throughout our system, of which the Sun is the heart — the same as the circulation of the blood in the human body — during the manvantaric solar period, or life; the Sun contracting as rhythmically at every return of it, as the human heart does. Only, instead of performing the round in a second or so, it takes the solar blood ten of its years, and a whole year to pass through its auricles and ventricles before it washes the lungs and passes thence to the great veins and arteries of the system.
This, Science will not deny, since Astronomy knows of the fixed cycle of eleven years when the number of solar spots increases,  which is due to the contraction of the Solar heart. The universe (our world in this case) breathes, just as man and every living creature, plant, and even mineral does upon the earth; and as our globe itself breathes every twenty-four hours. The dark region is not due “to the absorption exerted by the vapours issuing from the bosom of the sun and interposed between the observer and the photosphere,” as Father Secchi would have it (“Le Soleil” II.,184), nor are the spots formed “by the matter (heated gaseous matter) which the irruption projects upon the solar disc” (ibid). It is similar to the regular and healthy pulsation of the heart, as the life fluid passes through its hollow muscles. Could the human heart be made luminous, and the living and throbbing organ be made visible, so as to have it reflected upon a screen, such as used by the astronomers in their lectures — say for the moon — then every one would see the Sun-spot phenomenon repeated every second — due to its contraction and the rushing of the blood.
It is said in a work on Geology that it is the dream of Science that “all the recognized chemical elements will one day be found but modifications of a single material element.” (“World-Life,” p. 48.)
Occult philosophy has taught this since the existence of human speech and languages, adding only, on the principle of the immutable law of analogy — “as it is above, so it is below” — that other axiom, that there is neither Spirit nor matter, in reality, but only numberless aspects of the One ever-hidden is (or Sat). The homogeneous primordial Element is simple and single only on the terrestrial plane of consciousness and sensation, since matter, after all, is nothing else than the sequence of our own states of consciousness, and Spirit an idea of psychic intuition. Even on the next higher plane, that single element which is defined on our earth by current science, as the ultimate undecomposable constituent of some kind of matter, would be pronounced in the world of a higher spiritual perception as something very complex indeed. Our purest water would be found to yield, instead of its two declared simple elements of oxygen and hydrogen, many other constituents, undreamt of by our terrestrial modern chemistry. As in the realm of matter, so in the realm of Spirit, the shadow of that which is cognized on the plane of objectivity exists on that of pure subjectivity. The speck of the perfectly homogeneous substance, the sarcode of the Haeckelian monera, is now viewed as the archebiosis of terrestrial existence (Mr. Huxley’s “protoplasm”) ; and Bathybius Haeckelii has to be traced to its pre-terrestrial archebiosis. This is first perceived by the astronomers at its third stage of evolution, and in the “secondary creation,” so-called. But the students of Esoteric philosophy understand too well the secret meaning of the stanza: “Brahma has essentially the aspect of prakriti, both evolved and unevolved . . . . Spirit, O twice-born, (Initiate) is the leading aspect of Brahma. The next is a two-fold aspect — of Prakriti and Purusha, both evolved and unevolved; and time is the last! Anu is one of the names of Brahma (as distinct from Brahma neuter), and it means “atom”: Aniyamsam aniyasam, “the most atomic of the atomic,” the “immutable and imperishable (achyuta) Purushottama.”
Surely, then, the elements now known to us — be their number whatever it may — as they are understood and defined at present, are not, nor can they be, the primordial elements. Those were formed from “the curds of the cold radiant mother” and “the fire-seed of the hot Father” who “are one,” or, to express it in the plainer language of modern science, those elements had their genesis in the depths of the primordial fire-mist — the masses of incandescent vapour of the irresolvable nebulae; for as Professor Newcomb shows (in his “Popular Astronomy, “on page 444), resolvable nebulae are not a class of proper nebulae.
More than half of those which were at first mistaken for nebulae — he thinks — are what he calls “starry clusters.” The elements now known, have arrived at their state of permanency in this 4th Round and 5th Race. They have a short period of rest before they are propelled once more on their upward spiritual evolution; when the “living fire of Orcus” will dissociate the most irresolvable and scatter them into the primordial one — again.
Meanwhile the Occultist goes further, as has been shown in the Commentaries on the Seven Stanzas. Hence he can hardly hope for any help or recognition from science, which will reject both his “aniyamsam aniyasam” (the absolutely spiritual atom) and his Manasaputras — “mind-born men.” By resolving the “single material element” into one absolute irresolvable element — Spirit, or “Root-matter,” thus placing it at once outside the reach and province of physical philosophy — he has, of course but little in common with the orthodox men of science. He maintains that Spirit and Matter are two facets of the unknowable unity, their apparently contrasted aspects depending, (a) on the various degrees of differentiation of the latter, and (b) on the grades of consciousness attained by man himself. This is, however, metaphysics, and has little to do with physics — however great in its own terrestrial limitation that physical philosophy may now be.
Nevertheless, once that Science admits, if not the actual existence, at any rate, the possibility of the existence, of a Universe with its numberless forms, conditions, and aspects built out of a “single Substance,”  it has to go further. Unless it also admits the possibility of One Element, or the one life of the Occultists. It will have to hang up that “single substance,” especially if limited to only the solar nebulae, like the coffin of Mahomet, in mid air, though minus the attractive magnet that sustains that coffin. Fortunately for the speculative physicists, if unable to state with any degree of precision what the nebular theory does imply, we have, thanks to Professor Winchell, and several disagreeing astronomers, been able to learn what it does not imply.  (Vide Supra.)
Unfortunately, this is far from clearing even the most simple of the problems that have vexed, and still do vex, the men of learning in their research after truth. We have to proceed with our inquiries, starting with the earliest hypotheses of modern science, if we would discover where and why it sins. Perchance it may be found that Stallo is right, after all. That the blunders, contradictions, and fallacies made by the most eminent men of learning are simply due to their abnormal attitude. They are, and want to remain materialistic quand meme, and yet “the general principles of the atomo-mechanical theory — the basis of modern physics — are substantially identical with the cardinal doctrines of ontological metaphysics.” Thus, “the fundamental errors of ontology become apparent in proportion to the advance of physical Science.” (Int. p. VI., “Concepts of Modern Physics.”) Science is honeycombed with metaphysical conceptions, but the Scientists will not admit the charge and fight desperately to put atomo-mechanical masks on purely incorporeal and spiritual laws in nature, on our plane — refusing to admit their substantiality even on other planes, the bare existence of which they reject a priori.
It is easy to show, however, how Scientists, wedded to their materialistic views, have endeavoured, ever since the day of Newton, to put false masks on fact and truth. But their task is becoming with every year more difficult; and with every year also, Chemistry, above all the other sciences, approaches nearer and nearer the realm of the Occult in nature. It is assimilating the very truths taught by the Occult Sciences 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 Pradhana, 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 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:
And here the great chemist gives several cases of the very extraordinary behaviour of molecules and earths, apparently the same, and which yet, when examined very closely, were found to exhibit differences which, however imperceptible, still show that none of them are simple bodies, and that the 60 or 70 elements accepted in chemistry, can no longer cover the ground. Their name, apparently, is legion, but as the so-called “periodic theory” stands in the way of an unlimited multiplication of elements, Mr. Crookes is obliged to find some means of reconciling the new discovery with the old theory. “That theory,” he says: —
Thus fact and truth have once more forced the hand of “exact” Science, and compelled it to enlarge its views and change its terms which, masking the multitude, reduced them to one body — like the Septenary Elohim and their hosts transformed by the materialistic religionists into one Jehovah. Replace the chemical terms “Molecule,” “atom,” “particle,” etc., by the words “Hosts,” “Monads,” “Devas,” etc., and one might think the genesis of gods, the primeval evolution of manvantaric intelligent Forces, was being described. But the learned lecturer adds something still more suggestive to his descriptive remarks; whether consciously or unconsciously, who knoweth? For he says the following: —
The italics in the above passage are ours. Well may a man of science ask himself, “What power is it that directs each atom,” and what is it that its character should be selective? Theists would solve the question by answering “God”; and would solve nothing philosophically. Occultism answers on its own pantheistic grounds, and refers the reader to a subsequent section, “Gods, Monads, and Atoms.” The learned lecturer sees in it that which is his chief concern: the finger-posts and the traces of a path which may lead to the discovery, and the full and complete demonstration of an homogeneous element in nature. He remarks: —
Occultism, which knows of the existence and presence in Nature of the One eternal element at the first differentiation of which the roots of the tree of life are periodically struck, needs no scientific proofs. It says: — Ancient Wisdom has solved the problem ages ago. Aye; earnest, as well as mocking reader, Science is slowly but as surely approaching our domains of the Occult. It is forced by its own discoveries to adopt nolens volens our phraseology and symbols. Chemical Science is now compelled, by the very force of things, to accept even our illustration of the evolution of the gods and atoms, so suggestively and undeniably figured in the caduceus of Mercury, the God of Wisdom, and in the allegorical language of the Archaic Sages. Says a commentary in the esoteric doctrine: —
. . . . The trunk of the Asvattha (the tree of Life and Being, the rod of the caduceus) grows from and descends at every Beginning (every new manvantara) from the two dark wings of the Swan (Hansa) of Life. The two Serpents, the ever-living and its illusion (Spirit and matter) whose two heads grow from the one head between the wings, descend along the trunk, interlaced in close embrace. The two tails join on earth (the manifested Universe) into one, and this is the great illusion, O Lanoo!”Every one knows what the caduceus is, already modified by the Greeks. The original symbol — with the triple head of the serpent — became altered into a rod with a knob, and the two lower heads were separated, thus disfiguring somewhat the original meaning. Yet it is as good an illustration as can be for our purpose, this laya rod entwined by two serpents. Verily the wonderful powers of the magic caduceus were sung by all the ancient poets, with a very good reason for those who understood the secret meaning.
Now what says the learned President of the Chemical Society of Great Britain, in that same lecture, which has any reference to, or bearing upon, our above-mentioned doctrine. Very little; only this — and nothing more: —
A lemniscate for the evolution downward, from Spirit into matter; another form of a spiral, perhaps, in its reinvolutionary path onward, from matter into Spirit, and the necessary gradual and final reabsorption into the laya state, that which Science calls in her own way “the point neutral as to electricity” etc., or the zero point. Such are the Occult facts and statement. They may be left with the greatest security and confidence to Science, to be justified some day. Let us hear some more, however, about this primordial genetic type of the symbolical caduceus.
And, as if to prove the postulate of Occult Science and Hindu philosophy, that, at the hour of the Pralaya, the two aspects of the unknowable deity, “the Swan in darkness” — Prakriti and Purusha, nature or matter in all its forms and Spirit — “no longer subsist but are (absolutely) dissolved,” we learn the conclusive scientific opinion of the great English chemist, who caps his proofs by saying: — “We have now traced the formation of the chemical elements from knots and voids in a primitive, formless fluid. We have shown the possibility, nay, the probability that the atoms are not eternal in existence, but share with all other created beings the attributes of decay and death.”
Occultism says amen to this, as the Scientific “possibility” and “probability” are for it facts demonstrated beyond the necessity of further proof or any extraneous physical evidence. Nevertheless, it repeats with as much assurance as ever: “matter is eternal, becoming atomic (its aspect) only periodically.” This is as sure as that the other proposition, which is almost unanimously accepted by astronomers and physicists — namely, that the wear and tear of the body of the Universe is steadily going on, and that it will finally lead to the extinction of the Solar fires and the destruction of the Universe — is quite erroneous on the lines traced by Men of Science. There will be, as there ever were in time and eternity, periodical dissolutions of the manifested Universe, but (a) a partial pralaya after every “Day of Brahma;” and (b) an Universal pralaya — the Maha-pralaya — only after the lapse of every Brahma’s age. But the scientific causes for such dissolution, as brought forward by exact Science, have nothing to do with the true causes. However that may be, Occultism is once more justified by Science, for Mr. Crookes said: —
By a strong and curious coincidence even our “septenary” doctrine seems to force the hand of Science. If we understand rightly, Chemistry speaks of fourteen groupings of primitive atoms — lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, phosphorus, sulphur and chlorine; and Mr. Crookes, speaking of the “dominant atomicities,” enumerates seven groups of these, for he says: —
He adds: “While a natural position near the neutral axis is found for the three groups of elements relegated by Professor Mendeleeff to a sort of Hospital for Incurables — his eighth family.” It might be interesting to compare these “seven of the eighth family of ‘incurables’ ” with the allegories concerning the seven primitive sons of “Mother, Infinite Space,” or Aditi, and the eighth son rejected by her. Many a strange coincidence may thus be found between “those intermediate links . . . named ‘meta-elements or elementoids and those whom occult science names their noumenoi,’ the intelligent minds and rulers of those groupings of Monads and Atoms. But this would lead us too far. Let us be content with finding the confession of the fact that “this deviation from absolute homogeneity should mark the constitution of these molecules or aggregations of matter which we designate elements and will perhaps be clearer if we return in imagination to the earliest dawn of our material universe, and, face to face with the Great Secret, try to consider the processes of elemental evolution.” Thus finally Science, in the person of its highest representatives, in order to make itself clearer to the profane, adopts the phraseology of such old adepts as Roger Bacon, and returns to the “protyle.” All this is hopeful and suggestive of the “signs of the times.”
Indeed these “signs” are many and multiply daily; but none are more important than those just quoted. For now the chasm between the occult “superstitious and unscientific” teachings and “exact” science is completely bridged, and one, at least, of the few eminent chemists of the day is in the realm of the infinite possibilities of occultism. Every new step he will take will bring him nearer and nearer to that mysterious centre, from which radiate the innumerable paths that lead down Spirit into matter, and which transform the gods and the living monads into man and sentient nature.
But we have something more to say on this subject in the following section.
its possibilities and impossibilities.
Shall we say that Force is “moving matter,” or “matter in motion,” and a manifestation of energy; or that matter and force are the phenomenal differentiated aspects of the one primary, undifferentiated Cosmic Substance?
This query is made with regard to that Stanza which treats of Fohat and his “Seven brothers or Sons,” in other words, of the cause and the effects of Cosmic Electricity, the latter called, in Occult parlance, the seven primary forces of Electricity, whose purely phenomenal, and hence grossest effects are alone cognizable by physicists on the cosmic and especially on the terrestrial plane. These include, among other things, Sound, Light, Colour, etc., etc. Now what does physical Science tell us of these “Forces”? Sound, it says, is a sensation produced by the impact of atmospheric molecules on the tympanum, which, by setting up delicate tremors in the auditory apparatus, thus communicate themselves to the brain. Light is the sensation caused by the impact of inconceivably minute vibrations of ether on the retina of the eye.
So, too, we say. But this is simply the effect produced in our atmosphere and its immediate surroundings, all, in fact, which falls within the range of our terrestrial consciousness. Jupiter Pluvius sent his symbol in drops of rain, of water composed, as is believed, of two “elements,” which chemistry dissociates and recombines. The compound molecules are in its power, but their atoms still elude its grasp. Occultism sees in all these Forces and manifestations a ladder, the lower rungs of which belong to exoteric physics, and the higher are traced to a living, intelligent, invisible Power, which is, as a rule, the unconcerned, and exceptionally, the conscious cause of the sense-born phenomenon designated as this or another natural law. We say and maintain that Sound, for one thing, is a tremendous Occult power; that it is a stupendous force, of which the electricity generated by a million of Niagaras could never counteract the smallest potentiality when directed with occult knowledge. Sound may be produced of such a nature that the pyramid of Cheops would be raised in the air, or that a dying man, nay, one at his last breath, would be revived and filled with new energy and vigour.
For Sound generates, or rather attracts together, the elements that produce an ozone, the fabrication of which is beyond chemistry, but within the limits of Alchemy. It may even resurrect a man or an animal whose astral “vital body” has not been irreparably separated from the physical body by the severance of the magnetic or odic chord. As one saved thrice from death by that power, the writer ought to be credited with knowing personally something about it.
And if all this appears too unscientific to be even noticed, let Science explain to what mechanical and physical laws known to it, is due the recently produced phenomena of the so-called “Keely motor?” What is it that acts as the formidable generator of invisible but tremendous force, of that power which is not only capable of driving an engine of 25 horse-power, but has even been employed to lift the machinery bodily? Yet this is done simply by drawing a fiddle-bow across a tuning fork, as has been repeatedly proven. For the etheric Force, discovered by the well-known (in America and now in Europe) John Worrell Keely, of Philadelphia, is no hallucination. Notwithstanding his failure to utilize it, a failure prognosticated and maintained by some Occultists from the first, the phenomena exhibited by the discoverer during the last few years have been wonderful, almost miraculous, not in the sense of the supernatural  but of the superhuman. Had Keely been permitted to succeed, he might have reduced a whole army to atoms in the space of a few seconds as easily as he reduced a dead ox to the same condition.
The reader is now asked to give a serious attention to that newly-discovered potency which the discoverer has named “Inter-Etheric Force and Forces.”
In the humble opinion of the Occultists, as of his immediate friends, Mr. Keely, of Philadelphia, was, and still is, at the threshold of some of the greatest secrets of the Universe; of that chiefly on which is built the whole mystery of physical Forces, and the esoteric significance of the “Mundane Egg” symbolism. Occult philosophy, viewing the manifested and the unmanifested Kosmos as a unity, symbolizes the ideal conception of the former by that “Golden Egg” with two poles in it. It is the positive pole that acts in the manifested world of matter, while the negative is lost in the unknowable absoluteness of sat — “Be-ness.”  Whether this agrees with the philosophy of Mr. Keely, we cannot tell, nor does it really much matter. Nevertheless, his ideas about the ethero-material construction of the Universe look strangely like our own, being in this respect nearly identical. This is what we find him saying in an able pamphlet compiled by Mrs. Bloomfield-Moore, an American lady of wealth and position, whose incessant efforts in the pursuit of truth can never be too highly appreciated: — “Mr. Keely, in explanation of the working of his engine, says: ‘In the conception of any machine heretofore constructed, the medium for inducing a neutral centre has never been found. If it had, the difficulties of perpetual-motion seekers would have ended, and this problem would have become an established and operating fact. It would only require an introductory impulse of a few pounds, on such a device, to cause it to run for centuries. In the conception of my vibratory engine, I did not seek to attain perpetual motion; but a circuit is formed that actually has a neutral centre, which is in a condition to be vivified by my vibratory ether, and, while under operation by said substance, is really a machine that is virtually independent of the mass (or globe),  and it is the wonderful velocity of the vibratory circuit which makes it so. Still, with all its perfection, it requires to be fed with the vibratory ether to make it an independent motor . . . .”
“All structures require a foundation in strength according to the weight of the mass they have to carry, but the foundations of the universe rest on a vacuous point far more minute than a molecule; in fact, to express this truth properly, on an inter-etheric point, which requires an infinite mind to understand it. To look down into the depths of an etheric centre is precisely the same as it would be to search into the broad space of heaven’s ether to find the end, with this difference: that one is the positive field, while the other is the negative field . . . .” This, as easily seen, is precisely the Eastern doctrine. His inter-etheric point is the laya-point of the Occultists, which, however, does not require “an infinite mind to understand it,” but only a specific intuition and ability to trace its hiding-place in this world of matter. Of course, the laya centre cannot be produced, but an inter-etheric vacuum can — as proved in the production of bell-sounds in space. Mr. Keely speaks as an unconscious Occultist, nevertheless, when he remarks in his theory of planetary suspension: —
Mr. Keely illustrates his idea of “a neutral centre” in this way: —
And what Occultists understand by a “laya centre.”
The above is pronounced “unscientific” by many. But so is everything that is not sanctioned and kept on strictly orthodox lines by physical science. Unless the explanation given by the inventor himself is accepted — and his explanations, being, as observed, quite orthodox from the spiritual and the Occult stand-points, if not from that of materialistic speculative (called exact) Science, are therefore ours in this particular — what can science answer to facts already seen which it is no longer possible for anyone to deny? Occult philosophy divulges few of its most important vital mysteries. It drops them like precious pearls, one by one, far and wide apart, and only when forced to do so by the evolutionary tidal wave that carries on humanity slowly, silently, but steadily toward the dawn of the Sixth-Race mankind. For once out of the safe custody of their legitimate heirs and keepers, those mysteries cease to be occult: they fall into the public domain and have to run the risk of becoming in the hands of the selfish — of the Cains of the human race — curses more often than blessings. Nevertheless, whenever such individuals as the discoverer of Etheric Force — John Worrell Keely — men with peculiar psychic and mental capacities  are born, they are generally and more frequently helped than allowed to go unassisted; groping on their way, though, if left to their own resources, falling very soon victims to martyrdom and unscrupulous speculators. Only they are helped on the condition that they should not become, whether consciously or unconsciously, an additional peril to their age: a danger to the poor, now offered in daily holocaust by the less wealthy to the very wealthy.  This necessitates a short digression and an explanation.
Some twelve years back, during the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition, the writer, in answering the earnest queries of a theosophist, one of the earliest admirers of Mr. Keely, repeated to him what she had heard in quarters, information from which she could never doubt.
It had been stated that the inventor of the “Self-Motor” was what is called, in the jargon of the Kabalists, a “natural-born magician.” That he was and would remain unconscious of the full range of his powers, and would work out merely those which he had found out and ascertained in his own nature — firstly, because, attributing them to a wrong source, he could never give them full sway; and secondly, because it was beyond his power to pass to others that which was a capacity inherent in his special nature. Hence the whole secret could not be made over permanently to anyone for practical purposes or use. 
Individuals born with such a capacity are not very rare. That they are not heard of more frequently is due to the fact that they live and die, in almost every case, in utter ignorance of being possessed of abnormal powers at all. Mr. Keely possesses powers which are called “abnormal” just because they happen in our day to be as little known as blood circulation was before Harvey’s time. Blood existed, and it behaved as it does at present in the first man born from woman; and so does that principle in man which can control and guide etheric vibratory force. At any rate it exists in all those mortals whose inner selves are primordially connected, by reason of their direct descent, with that group of Dhyan-Chohans who are called “the first-born of Ether.” Mankind, psychically considered, is divided into various groups, each of which is connected with one of the Dhyanic groups that first formed psychic man;(see paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the Commentary to Stanza VII.) Mr. Keely being greatly favoured in this respect, and moreover, besides his psychic temperament, being intellectually a genius in mechanics, may thus achieve most wonderful results. He has achieved some already — more than any mortal man, not initiated into the final mysteries, has achieved in this age up to the present day. What he has done is certainly quite sufficient “to demolish with the hammer of Science the idols of Science” — the idols of matter with the feet of clay — as his friends justly predict and say of him. Nor would the writer for a moment think of contradicting Mrs. Bloomfield-Moore, when in her paper on “Psychic Force and Etheric Force,” she states that Mr. Keely, as a philosopher, “is great enough in soul, wise enough in mind, and sublime enough in courage to overcome all difficulties, and to stand at last before the world as the greatest discoverer and inventor in the world.”
And again she writes: — “Should Keely do no more than lead scientists from the dreary realms where they are groping into the open field of elemental force, where gravity and cohesion are disturbed in their haunts and diverted to use; where, from unity of origin, emanates infinite energy in diversified forms, he will achieve immortal fame. Should he demonstrate, to the destruction of materialism, that the universe is animated by a mysterious principle to which matter, however perfectly organized, is absolutely subservient, he will be a greater spiritual benefactor to our race than the modern world has yet found in any man. Should he be able to substitute, in the treatment of disease, the finer forces of nature for the grossly material agencies which have sent more human beings to their graves than war, pestilence and famine combined, he will merit and receive the gratitude of mankind. All this and more will he do, if he and those who have watched his progress, day by day for years, are not too sanguine in their expectations.”
Writing in the T. P. S. (“Theosophical Publication Society”) series (No. 9), the same lady, in her pamphlet, “Keely’s Secrets,” brings forward a passage from an article, written a few years ago by the writer of the present volume, in her journal, the Theosophist, in these words: —
It is just because Keely’s discovery would lead to a knowledge of one of the most occult secrets, a secret which can never be allowed to fall into the hands of the masses, that his failure to push his discoveries to their logical end seems certain to Occultists. But of this more presently. Even in its limitations this discovery may prove of the greatest benefit. For: —
The Occultists are ready to admit all this with the eloquent writer. Molecular vibration is, undeniably, “Keely’s legitimate field of research,” and the discoveries made by him will prove wonderful — yet only in his hands and through himself. The world so far will get but that with which it can be safely entrusted. The truth of this assertion has, perhaps, not yet quite dawned upon the discoverer himself, since he writes that he is absolutely certain that he will accomplish all that he has promised, and will then give it out to the world; but it must dawn upon him, and at no very far distant date. And what he says in reference to his work is a good proof of it: —
The passages underlined by us, are those which bear directly on the occult side of the application of the vibratory force, or what Mr. Keely calls “sympathetic vibration.” The “wire” is already a step below, or downward from the pure etheric plane into the terrestrial. The discoverer has produced marvels — the word “miracle” is not too strong — when acting through the inter-etheric Force alone, the fifth and sixth principles of Akasa. From a “generator” six feet long, he has come down to one “no larger than an old-fashioned silver watch;” and this by itself is a miracle of mechanical (but not spiritual) genius. But, as well expressed by his great patroness and defender, Mrs. Bloomfield-Moore, “the two forms of force which he has been experimenting with, and the phenomena attending them, are the very antithesis of each other.” One was generated and acted upon by and through himself. No one, who should have repeated the thing done by himself, could have produced the same results. It was “Keely’s ether” that acted truly, while “Smith’s or Brown’s” ether would have remained for ever barren of results. For Keely’s difficulty has hitherto been to produce a machine which would develop and regulate the “force” without the intervention of any “will power” or personal influence, whether conscious or unconscious of the operator. In this he has failed, so far as others were concerned, for no one but himself could operate on his “machines.” Occultly this was a far more advanced achievement than the “success” which he anticipates from his “wire,” but the results obtained from the fifth and sixth planes of the etheric (or Astral) Force, will never be permitted to serve for purposes of commerce and traffic. That Keely’s organism is directly connected with the production of the marvellous results is proven by the following statement emanating from one who knows the great discoverer intimately.
At one time the shareholders of the “Keely Motor Co.” put a man in his workshop for the express purpose of discovering his secret. After six months of close watching, he said to J. W. Keely one day: “I know how it is done, now.” They had been setting up a machine together, and Keely was manipulating the stop-cock which turned the force on and off. “Try it, then,” was the answer. The man turned the cock, and nothing came. “Let me see you do it again,” the man said to Keely. The latter complied, and the machinery operated at once. Again the other tried, but without success. Then Keely put his hand on his shoulder and told him to try once more. He did so, with the result of an instantaneous production of the current. This fact, if true, settles the question.
We are told that Mr. Keely defines electricity “as a certain form of atomic vibration.” In this he is quite right; but this is electricity on the terrestrial plane, and through terrestrial correlations. He estimates —
Molecular vibrations at 100,000,000
This proves our point. There are no vibrations that could be counted or even estimated at an approximate rate beyond “the realm of the fourth son of Fohat,” using an occult phraseology, or that motion which corresponds to the formation of Mr. Crookes’ radiant matter, or lightly called some years ago the “fourth state of matter” — on this our plane. If the question is asked why Mr. Keely was not allowed to pass a certain limit, the answer is easy; because that which he has unconsciously discovered, is the terrible sidereal Force, known to, and named by the Atlanteans mash-mak, and by the Aryan Rishis in their Ashtar Vidya by a name that we do not like to give. It is the vril of Bulwer Lytton’s “Coming Race,” and of the coming races of our mankind. The name vril may be a fiction; the Force itself is a fact doubted as little in India as the existence itself of their Rishis, since it is mentioned in all the secret works.
It is this vibratory Force, which, when aimed at an army from an Agni Rath fixed on a flying vessel, a balloon, according to the instructions found in Ashtar Vidya, reduced to ashes 100,000 men and elephants, as easily as it would a dead rat. It is allegorised in the Vishnu Purana, in the Ramayana and other works, in the fable about the sage Kapila whose glance made a mountain of ashes of King Sagara’s 60,000 sons, and which is explained in the esoteric works, and referred to as the Kapilaksha — “Kapila’s Eye.”
And is it this Satanic Force that our generations were to be allowed to add to their stock of Anarchist’s baby-toys, known as melenite, dynamite clock-works, explosive oranges, “flower baskets,” and such other innocent names? Is it this destructive agency, which, once in the hands of some modern Attila, e.g., a blood-thirsty anarchist, would reduce Europe in a few days to its primitive chaotic state with no man left alive to tell the tale — is this force to become the common property of all men alike?
What Mr. Keely has already done is grand and wonderful in the extreme; there is enough work before him in the demonstration of his new system to “humble the pride of those scientists who are materialistic, by revealing those mysteries which lie behind the world of matter,” without revealing it nolens volens to all. For surely Psychists and Spiritualists — of whom there are a good number in the European armies — would be the first to experience personally the fruits of such mysteries revealed. Thousands of them would find themselves (and perhaps with the populations of whole countries to keep them company) in blue Ether very soon, were such a Force to be even entirely discovered, let alone made publicly known. The discovery in its completeness is by several thousand — or shall we say hundred thousand? — years too premature. It will be at its appointed place and time only when the great roaring flood of starvation, misery, and underpaid labour ebbs back again — as it will when happily at last the just demands of the many are attended to; when the proletariat exists but in name, and the pitiful cry for bread, that rings throughout the world unheeded, has died away. This may be hastened by the spread of learning, and by new openings for work and emigration, with better prospects than exist now, and on some new continent that may appear. Then only will “Keely’s Motor and Force,” as originally contemplated by himself and friends, be in demand, because it will be more needed by the poor than by the wealthy.
Meanwhile the force discovered by him will work through wires, and this, if he succeeds, will be quite sufficient in the present generation to make of him the greatest discoverer of this age.
What Mr. Keely says of Sound and Colour is also correct from the Occult stand-point. Hear him talk as though he were the nursling of the “Gods-revealers,” and had gazed all his life into the depths of Father-Mother AEther.
In comparing the tenuity of the atmosphere with that of the etheric flows, obtained by him from his invention for breaking up the molecules of air by vibration, Keely says that: —
It may be remarked that, save a few small divergencies, no Adept nor Alchemist could have explained the above any better, in the light of modern Science, however much the latter may protest against the novel views. This is, in all its fundamental principles, if not details, Occultism pure and simple, yet withal, modern natural philosophy as well.
This “New Force,” or whatever Science may call it, the effects of which are undeniable — admitted by more than one naturalist and physicist who has visited Mr. Keely’s laboratory and witnessed personally its tremendous effects — what is it? Is it a “mode of motion,” also, “in Vacuo,” since there is no matter to generate it except Sound — another “mode of motion,” no doubt, a sensation caused like colour by vibrations? Fully as we believe in these vibrations as the proximate — the immediate — cause of such sensations, we as absolutely reject the one-sided scientific theory that there is no factor to be considered as external to us, other than etheric or atmospheric vibrations. 
There is a transcendental set of causes put in motion — so to speak — in the occurrence of these phenomena, which, not being in relation to our narrow range of cognition, can only be traced to their source and their nature, and understood by the Spiritual faculties of the Adept. They are, as Asclepios puts it to the King, “incorporeal corporealities” — such as “appear in the mirror,” and “abstract forms” that we see, hear, and smell, in our dreams, and visions. What have the “modes of motion,” light, and ether to do with these? Yet we see, hear, and smell, and touch them, ergo they are as much realities to us in our dreams, as any other thing on this plane of Maya.
from the stand-point of science and that of occultism.
When the Occultist speaks of “Elements,” and of human Beings who lived during those geological ages, the duration of which it is found as impossible to determine, according to the opinion of one of the best English geologists , as the nature of matter, it is because he knows what he is talking about. When he says “Man” and Elements, he neither means “man” in his present physiological and anthropological form, nor the elemental atoms, those hypothetical conceptions, the entitative abstractions of matter in its highly attenuated state, as existing at present in scientific minds; nor, again, the compound Elements of antiquity. In Occultism the word Element means “rudiment” in every case. When we say “Elementary Man,” we mean either the proemial, incipient sketch of man, in its unfinished and undeveloped condition, hence in that form which now lies latent in physical man during his life-time, and takes shape only occasionally and under certain conditions; or that form which for a time survives the material body, and which is better known as an “Elementary.”  With regard to “Element,” when the term is used metaphysically, it means, in distinction to the mortal, the incipient divine man; and, in its physical usage, inchoate matter in its first undifferentiated condition, or in the laya state, which is the eternal and the normal condition of substance, differentiating only periodically, and is during that differentiation in an abnormal state — in other words, a transitory illusion of the senses.
As to the “elemental atoms,” so called, the Occultists refer to them by that name with a meaning analogous to that which is given by the Hindu to Brahma when he calls him Anu, the “Atom.” Every elemental atom, in search of which more than one Chemist has followed the path indicated by the Alchemists, is, in their firm belief (when not knowledge), a soul; not necessarily a disembodied soul, but a jiva, as the Hindus call it, a centre of potential vitality, with latent intelligence in it, and, in the case of compound Souls — an intelligent active existence, from the highest to the lowest order, a form composed of more or less differentiations. It requires a metaphysician — and an Eastern metaphysician — to understand our meaning. All those atom-Souls are differentiations from the one, and in the same relation to it as the divine Soul — the Buddhi — to its informing and inseparable Spirit, or Atman.
Modern physics, while borrowing from the ancients their atomic theory, forgot one point, the most important of the doctrine; hence they got only the husks and will never be able to get at the kernel. They left behind, in the adoption of physical atoms, the suggestive fact that from Anaxagoras down to Epicurus, the Roman Lucretius, and finally even to Galileo, all those Philosophers believed more or less in animated atoms, not in invisible specks of so-called “brute” matter. Rotatory motion was generated in their views, by larger (read, more divine and pure) atoms forcing downwards other atoms; the lighter ones being thrust simultaneously upward. The esoteric meaning of this is the ever cyclic curve downward and upward of differentiated elements through intercyclic phases of existence, until each reaches again its starting point or birthplace. The idea was metaphysical as well as physical; the hidden interpretation embracing “gods” or souls, in the shape of atoms, as the causes of all the effects produced on Earth by the secretions from the divine bodies.  No ancient philosopher, not even the Jewish Kabalists, ever dissociated Spirit from matter or vice versa. Everything originated in the one, and, proceeding from the one, must finally return to the One. “Light becomes heat, and consolidates into fiery particles; which, from being ignited, become cold, hard particles, round and smooth. And this is called Soul, imprisoned in its robe of matter;”  Atoms and Souls having been synonymous in the language of the Initiates. The “whirling Souls,” Gilgoolem, a doctrine in which so many learned Jews have believed (See Mackenzie’s Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia), had no other meaning esoterically. The learned Jewish Initiates never meant by the “Promised land” Palestine alone, but the same Nirvana as the learned Buddhist and Brahmin do — the bosom of the Eternal One, symbolized by that of Abraham, and by Palestine as its substitute on Earth.  The passage of the Soul-Atom “through the Seven Planetary Chambers” had the same metaphysical and also physical meaning. It had the latter when it was said to dissolve into Ether (See Isis Unveiled, Vol. I., p. 297.) Even Epicurus, the model Atheist and materialist, knew and believed so much in the ancient Wisdom, that he taught that the Soul (entirely distinct from immortal Spirit when the former is enshrined latent in it, as it is in every atomic speck), was composed of a fine, tender essence, formed from the smoothest, roundest, and finest atoms.
And this shows that the ancient Initiates, who were followed more or less closely by all profane antiquity, meant by the term “atom,” a Soul, a Genius or Angel, the first-born of the ever-concealed cause of all causes; and in this sense their teachings become comprehensible. They claimed, as do their successors, the existence of Gods and Genii, angels or “demons,” not outside, or independent of, the Universal Plenum, but within it. Only this Plenum, during the life-cycles, is infinite. They admitted and taught a good deal of that which modern Science teaches now —namely, the existence of a primordial “World-stuff or Cosmic Substance,” from which worlds are formed, ever and eternally homogeneous, except during its periodic existence, when it differentiates its universal diffusion throughout infinite space; and the gradual formation of sidereal bodies from it. They taught the revolution of the Heavens, the Earth’s rotation, the Heliocentric System, and the Atomic Vortices — Atoms — in reality Souls and intelligences. But those “Atomists” were spiritual, most transcendental, and philosophical Pantheists. It is not they who would have ever conceived, or dreamt that monstrous contrasted progeny, the nightmare of our modern civilized Race; namely — inanimate material, self-guiding atoms, on the one hand, and an extra-Cosmic God on the other.
It may be useful to show what, in the teachings of the old Initiates, the Monad was, and what its origin.
Modern exact Science, as soon as it began to grow out of its teens, perceived the great, and, to it, hitherto esoteric axiom, that nothing — whether in the spiritual, psychic, or physical realm of being — could come into existence out of nothing. There is no cause in the manifested universe without its adequate effects, whether in space or time; nor can there be an effect without its primal cause, which itself owes its existence to a still higher one — the final and absolute cause having to remain to man for ever an incomprehensible Causeless Cause. But even this is no solution, and must be viewed, if at all, from the highest philosophical and metaphysical standpoints, otherwise the problem had better be left unapproached. It is an abstraction, on the verge of which human reason — however trained to metaphysical subtleties — trembles, threatening to collapse. This may be demonstrated to any European who would undertake to solve the problem of existence by the articles of faith of the true Vedantin, for instance. Let him read and study the sublime teachings on the subject of Soul and Spirit, of Sankaracharya (Viveka Chudamani) , and the reader will realize what is now said.
While the Christian is taught that the human soul is a breath of God — being created by him for sempiternal existence, i.e., having a beginning, but no end (and therefore never to be called eternal) — the Occult teaching says, “Nothing is created, but is only transformed. Nothing can manifest itself in this universe — from a globe down to a vague, rapid thought — that was not in the universe already; everything on the subjective plane is an eternal is; as everything on the objective plane is an ever becoming — because transitory.”
The monad — a truly “indivisible thing,” as defined by Good, who did not give it the sense we now do — is here rendered as the Atma in conjunction with Buddhi and the higher Manas. This trinity is one and eternal, the latter being absorbed in the former at the termination of all conditioned and illusive life. The monad, then, can be traced through the course of its pilgrimage and its changes of transitory vehicles only from the incipient stage of the manifested Universe. In Pralaya, or the intermediate period between two manvantaras, it loses its name, as it loses it when the real one self of man merges into Brahm in cases of high Samadhi (the Turiya state) or final Nirvana; “when the disciple” in the words of Sankara, “having attained that primeval consciousness, absolute bliss, of which the nature is truth, which is without form and action, abandons this illusive body that has been assumed by the atma just as an actor (abandons) the dress (put on).” For Buddhi (the Anandamaya sheath) is but a mirror which reflects absolute bliss; and, moreover, that reflection itself is yet not free from ignorance, and is not the Supreme Spirit, being subject to conditions, being a spiritual modification of Prakriti, and an effect; Atma alone is the one real and eternal substratum of all — the essence and absolute knowledge — the Kshetragna.  It is called in the Esoteric philosophy “the One Witness,” and, while it rests in Devachan, is referred to as “the Three Witnesses to Karma.”
Atma (our seventh principle) being identical with the universal Spirit, and man being one with it in his essence, what is then the Monad proper? It is that homogeneous spark which radiates in millions of rays from the primeval “Seven;” — of which seven further on. It is the emanating spark from the uncreated Ray — a mystery. In the esoteric, and even exoteric Buddhism of the North, Adi Buddha (Chogi dangpoi sangye), the One unknown, without beginning or end, identical with Parabrahm and Ain-Soph, emits a bright ray from its darkness.
This is the Logos (the first), or Vajradhara, the Supreme Buddha (also called Dorjechang). As the Lord of all Mysteries he cannot manifest, but sends into the world of manifestation his heart — the “diamond heart,” Vajrasattva (Dorjesempa). This is the second logos of creation, from whom emanate the seven (in the exoteric blind the five) Dhyani Buddhas, called the Anupadaka, “the parentless.” These Buddhas are the primeval monads from the world of incorporeal being, the Arupa world, wherein the Intelligences (on that plane only) have neither shape nor name, in the exoteric system, but have their distinct seven names in esoteric philosophy. These Dhyani Buddhas emanate, or create from themselves, by virtue of Dhyana, celestial Selves — the super-human Bodhisattvas. These incarnating at the beginning of every human cycle on earth as mortal men, become occasionally, owing to their personal merit, Bodhisattvas among the Sons of Humanity, after which they may re-appear as Manushi (human) Buddhas. The Anupadaka (or Dhyani-Buddhas) are thus identical with the Brahminical Manasaputra,” mind-born sons” — whether of Brahma or either of the other two Trimurtian Hypostases, hence identical also with the Rishis and Prajapatis. Thus, a passage is found in Anugita, which, read esoterically, shows plainly, though under another imagery, the same idea and system. It says: “Whatever entities there are in this world, moveable or immoveable, they are the very first to be dissolved (at pralaya); and next the developments produced from the elements (from which the visible Universe is fashioned); and, after these developments (evolved entities), all the elements. Such is the upperward gradation among entities. Gods, Men, Gandharvas, Pisachas, Asuras, Rakshasas, all have been created by Svabhava (Prakriti, or plastic nature), not by actions, nor by a cause” — i.e., not by any physical cause.
“These Brahmanas (the Rishi Prajapati?), the creators of the world, are born here (on earth) again and again. Whatever is produced from them is dissolved in due time in those very five great elements (the five, or rather seven, Dhyani Buddhas, also called “Elements” of Mankind), like billows in the ocean. These great elements are in every way beyond the elements that make up the world (the gross elements). And he who is released even from these five elements (the tanmatras)  goes to the highest goal.” “The Lord Prajapati (Brahma) created all this by the mind only,” i.e., by Dhyana, or abstract meditation and mystic powers like the Dhyani Buddhas (vide supra). Evidently then, these “Brahmanas” are identical with the Bodhisattvas (the terrestrial) of the heavenly Dhyani Buddhas. Both, as primordial, intelligent “Elements,” become the creators or the emanators of the monads destined to become human in that cycle; after which they evolve themselves, or, so to say, expand into their own selves as Bodhisattvas or Brahmanas, in heaven and earth, to become at last simple men — “the creators of the world are born here, on earth again and again” — truly. In the Northern Buddhist system, or the popular exoteric religion, it is taught that every Buddha, while preaching the good law on earth, manifests himself simultaneously in three worlds: in the formless, as Dhyani Buddha, in the World of forms, as a Bodhisattva, and in the world of desire, the lowest (or our world) as a man. Esoterically the teaching differs: The divine, purely Adi-Buddhic monad manifests as the universal Buddhi (the Maha-buddhi or Mahat in Hindu philosophies) the spiritual, omniscient and omnipotent root of divine intelligence, the highest anima mundi or the Logos. This descends “like a flame spreading from the eternal Fire, immoveable, without increase or decrease, ever the same to the end” of the cycle of existence, and becomes universal life on the Mundane Plane. From this Plane of conscious Life shoot out, like seven fiery tongues, the Sons of Light (the logoi of Life); then the Dhyani-Buddhas of contemplation: the concrete forms of their formless Fathers — the Seven Sons of Light, still themselves, to whom may be applied the Brahmanical mystic phrase: “Thou art ‘THAT’ — Brahm.” It is from these Dhyani-Buddhas that emanate their chhayas (Shadows) the Bodhisattvas of the celestial realms, the prototypes of the super-terrestrial Bodhisattvas, and of the terrestrial Buddhas, and finally of men. The “Seven Sons of Light” are also called “Stars.”
The star under which a human Entity is born, says the Occult teaching, will remain for ever its star, throughout the whole cycle of its incarnations in one Manvantara. But this is not his astrological star. The latter is concerned and connected with the personality, the former with the individuality. The “Angel” of that Star, or the Dhyani-Buddha will be either the guiding or simply the presiding “Angel,” so to say, in every new rebirth of the monad, which is part of his own essence, though his vehicle, man, may remain for ever ignorant of this fact. The adepts have each their Dhyani-Buddha, their elder “twin Soul,” and they know it, calling it “Father-Soul,” and “Father-Fire.” It is only at the last and supreme initiation, however, that they learn it when placed face to face with the bright “Image.” How much has Bulwer Lytton known of this mystic fact when describing, in one of his highest inspirational moods, Zanoni face to face with his Augoeides?
The Logos, or both the unmanifested and the manifested Word, is called by the Hindus, Iswara, “the Lord,” though the Occultists give it another name. Iswara, say the Vedantins, is the highest consciousness in nature. “This highest consciousness,” answer the Occultists, “is only a synthetic unit in the world of the manifested Logos — or on the plane of illusion; for it is the sum total of Dhyan-Chohanic consciousnesses.” “Oh, wise man, remove the conception that not-Spirit is Spirit,” says Sankaracharya. Atma is not-Spirit in its final Parabrahmic state, Iswara or Logos is Spirit; or, as Occultism explains, it is a compound unity of manifested living Spirits, the parent-source and nursery of all the mundane and terrestrial monads, plus their divine reflection, which emanate from, and return into, the Logos, each in the culmination of its time. There are seven chief groups of such Dhyan Chohans, which groups will be found and recognised in every religion, for they are the primeval seven Rays. Humanity, occultism teaches us, is divided into seven distinct groups and their sub-divisions, mental, spiritual, and physical.  The monad, then, viewed as one, is above the seventh principle (in Kosmos and man), and as a triad, it is the direct radiant progeny of the said compound unit, not the breath (and special creation out of nihil) of “God,” as that unit is called; for such an idea is quite unphilosophical, and degrades Deity, dragging it down to a finite, attributive condition. As well expressed by the translator of the “Crest-Jewel of Wisdom” — though Iswara is “God” “unchanged in the profoundest depths of pralayas and in the intensest activity of the manvantaras” . . ., still “beyond (him) is ‘Atma,’ round whose pavilion is the darkness of eternal Maya.”  The “triads” born under the same Parent-planet, or rather the radiations of one and the same Planetary Spirit (Dhyani Buddha) are, in all their after lives and rebirths, sister, or “twin-souls,” on this Earth. 
This was known to every high Initiate in every age and in every country: “I and my Father are one,” said Jesus (John x. 30).  When He is made to say, elsewhere (xx. 17): “I ascend to my Father and your Father,” it meant that which has just been stated. It was simply to show that the group of his disciples and followers attracted to Him belonged to the same Dhyani Buddha, “Star,” or “Father,” again of the same planetary realm and division as He did. It is the knowledge of this occult doctrine that found expression in the review of “The Idyll of the White Lotus,” when Mr. T. Subba Row wrote: “Every Buddha meets at his last initiation all the great adepts who reached Buddhahood during the preceding ages . . . every class of adepts has its own bond of spiritual communion which knits them together. . . . . The only possible and effectual way of entering into such brotherhood . . . . is by bringing oneself within the influence of the Spiritual light which radiates from one’s own Logos. I may further point out here . . . . that such communion is only possible between persons whose souls derive their life and sustenance from the same divine ray, and that, as seven distinct rays radiate from the ‘Central Spiritual Sun,’ all adepts and Dhyan Chohans are divisible into seven classes, each of which is guided, controlled, and overshadowed by one of the seven forms or manifestations of the divine Wisdom.” (“Theosophist,” Aug., 1886.)
It is then the “Seven Sons of Light” — called after their planets and (by the rabble) often identified with them — namely Saturn, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Venus, and — presumably for the modern critic, who goes no deeper than the surface of old religions  — the Sun and Moon, which are, according to the Occult teachings, our heavenly Parents, or “Father,” synthetically. Hence, as already remarked, polytheism is really more philosophical and correct, as to fact and nature, than anthropomorphic monotheism. Saturn, Jupiter, Mercury, and Venus, the four exoteric planets, and the three others, which must remain unnamed, were the heavenly bodies in direct astral and psychic communication with the Earth, its Guides, and Watchers — morally and physically; the visible orbs furnishing our Humanity with its outward and inward characteristics, and their “Regents” or Rectors with our Monads and spiritual faculties. In order to avoid creating new misconceptions, let it be stated that among the three secret orbs (or star-angels) neither Uranus nor Neptune entered; not only because they were unknown under these names to the ancient Sages, but because they, as all other planets, however many there may be, are the gods and guardians of other septenary chains of globes within our systems.
Nor do the two last discovered great planets depend entirely on the Sun like the rest of the planets. Otherwise, how explain the fact that Neptune receives 900 times less light than our Earth, and Uranus 390 times less, and that their satellites show a peculiarity of inverse rotation found in no other planets of the Solar System. At any rate, what we say applies to Uranus, though recently the fact begins again to be disputed.
This subject will, of course, be considered mere vagary by all those who confuse the universal order of being with their own systems of classification. Here, however, simple facts from Occult teachings are stated, to be either accepted or rejected, as the case may be. There are details which, on account of their great metaphysical abstractions, cannot be entered upon. Hence, we merely state that only seven of our planets are as intimately related to our globe, as the Sun is to all the bodies subject to him in his system. Of these bodies the poor little number of primary and secondary planets known to astronomy, looks wretched enough, in truth.  Therefore, it stands to reason that there are a great number of planets, small and large, that have not been discovered yet, but of the existence of which ancient astronomers — all of them initiated adepts — must have certainly been aware. But, as their relation to the gods was sacred, it had to remain arcane, as also the names of various other planets and stars.
Besides which, even the Roman Catholic theology speaks of “seventy planets that preside over the destinies of the nations of this globe”; and, save the erroneous application, there is more truth in this tradition than in exact modern astronomy. The seventy planets are connected with the seventy elders of the people of Israel (Numb. 11, 16) because the regents of these planets are meant, not the orbs themselves; and the word seventy is a play and a blind upon the 7 x 7 of the subdivisions. Each people and nation, as said already, has its direct Watcher, Guardian and Father in Heaven — a Planetary Spirit. We are willing to leave their own national God, Jehovah, to the descendants of Israel, the worshippers of Sabaoth or Saturn; for, indeed, the monads of the people chosen by him are his own, and the Bible has never made a secret of it. Only the text of the English (Protestant) Bible is, in disagreement, as usual, with those of the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Thus, while in the former one reads (in Deuter. xxxii., 8 and 9) “When the most high (not Jehovah) divided to the nations their inheritance . . . he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel,” in the Septuagint the text reads “according to the number of the Angels” (Planet-Angels), which is more concordant with truth and fact. Moreover, all the texts agree that “the Lord’s (Jehovah) portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance” (Deut. xxxii. 9); and this settles the question. The “Lord” Jehovah took for his portion Israel — what have other nations to do with that particular national Deity? Let then, the “angel Gabriel” watch over Iran and “Mikael-Jehovah” over the Hebrews. These are not the gods of other nations, and it is difficult to see why Christians should have selected a god against whose commandments Jesus was the first one to rise in rebellion.
The Planetary origin of the Monad (Soul) and of its faculties was taught by the Gnostics. On its way to the Earth, as on its way back from the Earth, each soul born in, and from, the “Boundless Light,”  had to pass through the seven planetary regions both ways. The pure Dhyani and Devas of the oldest religions had become, in course of time, with the Zoroastrians, the Seven Daevas, the ministers of Ahriman, “each chained to his planet” (see Origen’s Copy of the Chart); with the Brahmins, the Asuras and some of its Rishis — good, bad and indifferent; and among the Egyptian Gnostics it was Thoth or (Hermes) who was the chief of the seven whose names are given by Origen as Adonai, genius of the Sun; Tao, of the Moon; Eloi, of Jupiter; Sabao, of Mars; Orai, of Venus; Astaphai, of Mercury; and Ildabaoth (Jehovah), of Saturn. Finally, the Pistis-Sophia, which the greatest modern authority on exoteric Gnostic beliefs, the late Mr. C. W. King, refers to as “that precious monument of Gnosticism,” — this old document echoes, while distorting it to sectarian purposes, the archaic belief of the ages. The Astral Rulers of the Spheres (the planets) create the monads (the Souls) from their own substance out of the “tears of their eyes, and the sweat of their torments,” endowing the monads with a spark of the Divine Light, which is their substance. It will be shown in Book II. why these “Lords of the Zodiac and Spheres” have been transformed by sectarian theology into the rebellious angels of the Christians, who took them from the Seven Devs of the Magi, without understanding the significance of the allegory. (Vide Part II., “On the Seven Souls,” and Section xv. in this Part, “Gods, Monads and Atoms”).
As usual, that which is and was from its beginning divine, pure, and spiritual in its earliest unity, became, by reason of its differentiation by the distorted prism of man’s conceptions, human and impure, as reflecting man’s own sinful nature. Thus, in time, the planet Saturn became reviled by the worshippers of other “gods.” The nations born under Saturn — the Jewish, for instance — with whom he had become Jehovah, after having been held as a son of Saturn, or Ilda-Baoth, by the Ophites, and in the book of Jasher — were eternally fighting with those born under Jupiter, Mercury, or any other planet, except Saturn-Jehovah; genealogies and prophecies notwithstanding, Jesus the initiate (or Jehoshua) — the type from whom the “historical” Jesus was copied — was not of pure Jewish blood, and thus recognised no Jehovah; nor did he worship any planetary god beside his own “Father,” whom he knew, and with whom he communed as every high initiate does, “Spirit to Spirit and Soul to Soul.” This can hardly be taken exception to, unless the critic explains to every one’s satisfaction the strange sentences put in the mouth of Jesus by the author of the Fourth Gospel (chapter viii.) during his disputes with the Pharisees.
“I know ye are Abraham’s seed  . . . I speak the things which I have seen with my Father; and ye do the things which ye heard from your Father. . . . . Ye do the works of your Father. . . . . Ye are of your Father, the Devil. . . . . He was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When one speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own; for his father also is a liar and the father thereof,” etc., etc.
That “Father” of the Pharisees was Jehovah, because identical with Cain, Saturn, Vulcan, etc. — the planet under which they were born, and the God whom they worshipped. Evidently there must be an occult meaning sought in these words and admonitions, however mistranslated, since they are pronounced by one who threatened with hell-fire anyone who says simply raca (fool) to his brother (Matthew v., 22). And evidently, again, the planets are not merely spheres, twinkling in Space, and made to shine for no purpose, but the domains of various beings with whom the profane are so far unacquainted; nevertheless, having a mysterious, unbroken, and powerful connection with men and globes. Every heavenly body is the temple of a god, and these gods themselves are the temples of God, the Unknown “Not Spirit.” There is nothing profane in the Universe. All Nature is a consecrated place, as Young says: —
Thus can all exoteric religions be shown the falsified copies of the esoteric teaching. It is the priesthood which has to be held responsible for the reaction in favour of materialism of our day. It is by worshiping and enforcing on the masses the worship of the shells — personified for purposes of allegory — of pagan ideals, that the latest exoteric religion has made of Western lands a Pandemonium, in which the higher classes worship the golden calf, and the lower and ignorant masses are made to worship an idol with feet of clay.
Modern Science is ancient thought distorted, and no more. We have seen, however, what intuitional scientists think, and are busy about; and now the reader may be given a few more proofs of the fact that more than one F.R.S. is unconsciously approaching the derided Secret Sciences.
With regard to cosmogony and primeval matter, modern speculations are undeniably ancient thought, improved by contradictory theories of recent origin. But the whole foundation belongs to Grecian and Indian Archaic astronomy and physics, in those days always called philosophy. In all the Aryan and Greek speculations, one meets with the conception of an all-pervading, unorganized, and homogeneous matter, or Chaos, re-named by modern scientists “Nebular condition of the world-stuff.” What Anaxagoras called “Chaos” in his Homoiomeria is now called “primitive fluid” by Sir W. Thomson. The Hindu and Greek Atomists — Kanada, Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, etc., etc., are now reflected as in a clear mirror, in the supporters of the atomic theory of our modern days, beginning with Leibnitz’s Monads, and ending with the “Vortical Atoms” of Sir W. Thomson.  True, the corpuscular theory of old is rejected, and the undulatory theory has taken its place. But the question is, whether the latter is so firmly established as not to be liable to be dethroned as was its predecessor? Light from its metaphysical aspect was fully treated of in “Isis Unveiled”: —
This is the Ether, as just explained in the views of Metcalfe, repeated by Dr. Richardson, save the submission of the former to some details of the modern undulatory theory. We do not say that we deny the theory, but assert only that it needs completion and re-arrangement. But the Occultists are by no means the only heretics in this respect; for Mr. Robert Hunt, F.R.S., remarks, in his Researches on Light in its Chemical Relations, that: —
To this remark of Sir W. Brewster — “forced to reason as if light was material” — there is a good deal to reply. Light, in one sense, is certainly as material as electricity itself is. And if electricity is not material, if it is only “a mode of motion,” how is it that it can be stored up in Faure’s accumulators? Helmholtz says that electricity must be as atomic as matter; and Mr. W. Crookes, F.R.S., supported the view in his address to the Chemical Section of the British Association, of which he was President (at Birmingham, 1886). This is what Helmholtz says (in his Faraday Lectures,1881): —
Here we have to repeat that which was already said in Section IX: there is but one science that can henceforth direct modern research into the one path which will lead to the discovery of the whole, hitherto occult, truth, and it is the youngest of all — chemistry, as it now stands reformed. There is no other, not excluding astronomy, that can so unerringly guide scientific intuition, as chemistry can. Two proofs of it are to be found in the world of Science — two great chemists, each among the greatest in his own country, and these are Mr. Crookes and the late Professor Butlerof: one, a thorough believer in abnormal phenomena; the other, as fervid a Spiritualist as he was great in natural Sciences. It becomes evident that while pondering over the ultimate divisibility of matter, and in the hitherto fruitless chase after the element of negative atomic weight, the scientifically trained mind of the chemist must feel irresistibly drawn towards those ever-shrouded worlds, to the mysterious beyond, whose measureless depths seem to close against the approach of the too materialistic hand that would fain draw aside its veil. “It is the unknown and the ever unknowable,” warns the Monist-Agnostic. Not so; answers the persevering chemist: — “We are on the track and are not daunted, and fain would we enter the mysterious region which ignorance tickets unknown.” 
A few lines at the very close of his lecture on the Genesis of the Elements — two or three sentences — showed the eminent Scientist to be on the royal road to the greatest discoveries. He has been overshadowing for some time “the original protyle,” and came to the conclusion that “he who grasps the Key will be permitted to unlock some of the deepest mysteries of creation.” The protyle, as that great chemist explains: —
The Knowledge of Roger Bacon did not come to this wonderful old magician  by inspiration, but because he studied ancient works on magic and alchemy, having a key to the real meaning of words. But see what Mr. Crookes says of protyle, next neighbour to the unconscious Mulaprakriti of the Occultists: —
With every respect due to the great knowledge of the lecturer, the Occultist would put it otherwise. They would say that no atom is ever “created,” for the atoms are eternal within the bosom of the One Atom, — “the atom of atoms” — viewed during Manvantara as the Jagad-Yoni the material causative womb of the world. Pradhana (unmodified matter), that which is the first form of Prakriti, or material visible, as well as invisible nature, and Purusha, spirit, are eternally one; and they are Nirupadhi, (without adventitious qualities or attributes) only during Pralaya, and when beyond any of the planes of consciousness of existence. The atom, as known to modern science, is inseparable from Purusha, which is spirit, but is now called “Energy” in Science. The protyle atom has not been comminuted or subtilized: it has simply passed into that plane, which is no plane, but the eternal state of everything beyond the planes of illusion. Both Purusha and Pradhana are immutable and unconsumable, or Aparinamin and Avyaya, in eternity; and both during the Mayavic periods may be referred to as Vyaya and Parinamin, or that which can expand, pass away and disappear, and is “modifiable.” In this sense Purusha, must of course, be held distinct in our conceptions from Parabrahmam. Nevertheless that, which is called “energy” or “force” in Science and has been explained as a dual Force by Metcalfe, is never, in fact, and cannot be energy alone; for it is the substance of the world, its soul, the all-permeant “Sarvaga,” in conjunction with Kala “time.” The three are the trinity in one, during Manvantara, the all-potential Unity, which acts on the plane of illusion (Maya) as three distinct things. In Orphic philosophy in Greece they were called Phanes, Chaos, and Chronos — the triad of the Occult philosophers of that period.
But see how closely Mr. Crookes brushes by the “Unknowable,” and what “potentialities” there are for the acceptance of Occult truths in his discoveries. He continues, speaking of the evolution of atoms: —
This justifies several assertions in the Occult works.
Firstly, “that neither stars nor the sun can be said to be constituted of those terrestrial elements with which the chemist is familiar, though they are all present in the sun’s outward robes — and a host more of elements so far unknown to science.”
Secondly, that our globe has its own special laboratory on the far-away outskirts of its atmosphere, crossing which, every atom and molecule change and differentiate from their primordial nature.
And Thirdly, that though no element present on our earth could ever be possibly found wanting in the sun, there are many others which have either not reached, or not as yet been discovered on, our globe. “Some may be missing in certain stars and heavenly bodies in the process of formation; or, though present in them, these elements, on account of their present state, may not respond as yet to the usual scientific tests.”  Mr. Crookes speaks of an element of still lower atomic weight than hydrogen, an element purely hypothetical as far as our earth is concerned . . . though existing in abundance in the chromosphere of the Sun — the helium. Occult Science adds that not one of the elements regarded by chemistry as such really deserves the name.
Again we find Mr. Crookes speaking with approbation of “Dr. Carnelly’s weighty argument in favour of the compound nature of the so-called elements, from their analogy to the compound radicles! ” Hitherto, alchemy alone succeeded within the historical periods, and in the so-called civilized countries, in obtaining a real element, or a particle of homogeneous matter, the Mysterium Magnum of Paracelsus. But then it was before Lord Bacon’s day. 
This is, in a strictly scientific, but beautiful language, the description of the evolution of the differentiated Universe in the secret teachings. The learned gentleman closes his address in words, every sentence of which is like a flash of light from beyond the dark veil of materiality, hitherto thrown upon the exact sciences, and a step forward towards the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Occult. (Vide § XV., “Gods, Monads, and Atoms.”) Thus he says: —
Thus inductive Science, in its Branches of Astronomy, Physics, and Chemistry, while advancing timidly towards the conquest of Nature’s secrets in her final effects on our terrestrial plane, recedes to the days of Anaxagoras and the Chaldees in its discoveries of (a) the origin of our phenomenal world, and (b) the modes of formation of the bodies that compose the universe. And having to turn back for their cosmogonical hypotheses to the beliefs of the earliest philosophers, and the systems of the latter — systems that were all based on the teachings of a universal secret doctrine with regard to the primeval matter with its properties, functions, and laws, — have we not the right to hope that the day is not far off when Science will show a better appreciation of the wisdom of the ancients than it has hitherto done?
No doubt Occult philosophy could learn a good deal from exact modern science; but the latter, on the other hand, might profit by ancient learning in more than one way, and chiefly in Cosmogony. For instance, the mystical signification, alchemical and transcendental, of the many imponderable substances that fill interplanetary space, and which, interpenetrating each, are the direct cause, at the lower end, of the production of natural phenomena manifesting through vibration (so-called). The knowledge of the real (not the hypothetical) nature of Ether, or rather of the Akasa, and other mysteries, in short, can alone lead to the knowledge of Forces. It is that substance against which the materialistic school of the physicists rebels with such fury, especially in France,  and which exact Science has to advocate notwithstanding. They cannot make away with it without incurring the risk, like a modern Samson, of pulling down the pillars of the Temple of Science, and getting buried under its roof.
The theories built upon the rejection of Force outside and independent of Matter pure and simple, have been all shown fallacious. They do not, and cannot, cover the ground, and many of the scientific data are thus proved unscientific. “Ether produced Sound” is said in the Puranas, and the statement is laughed at. It is the vibrations in the air, we are corrected. And what is air? Could it exist if there were no etheric medium in Space to buoy up its molecules? The case stands simply thus. Materialism cannot admit the existence of anything outside matter, because with the acceptance of an imponderable Force — the source and head of all the physical Forces — other intelligent Forces would have to be admitted virtually, and that would lead Science very far. For it would have to accept as a sequel the presence in Man of a still more spiritual power — entirely independent, for once, of any kind of matter physicists know anything about. Hence, apart from an hypothetical ether of Space and gross physical bodies, the whole Sidereal and unseen Space is, in the sight of the materialists, one boundless void in nature — blind, unintelligent, useless.
And now the next question is: What is that Cosmic Substance, and how far can one go to suspect its nature or to wrench from it its secrets, and thus feel justified in giving it a name? How far, especially, has modern Science gone in the direction of those secrets, and what it is doing to solve them. The latest hobby of Science, the “Nebular Theory,” may afford us some answer to this question. Let us then examine the credentials of the 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 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, became 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 nebulae 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 known to physical science; and it is self-luminous. But that is all. The sixty-two “coincidences” enumerated by Professor Stephen Alexander,  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 except its general features. Nevertheless, “there is in Laplace’s theory,” says John Stuart Mill, “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.” (System of Logic, p. 229).
This from such an eminent logician as Mill was, would be valuable, if it could only be proved that “terrestrial objects resembling . . .” celestial objects at such a distance as the nebulae are — resemble those objects in reality, not alone in appearance.
Another of the fallacies from the Occult stand-point, which are 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 planets are only co-uterine brothers, having had the same nebular origin, only in a different mode from that postulated by modern astronomy.
The many objections raised against the homogeneity of original diffuse matter, on the ground of the uniformity in the composition of the fixed stars, by some opponents of the modern nebular theory, do not affect the question of that homogeneity at all, but only the said theory. 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 — i.e., as it appeared even in its first differentiation from its laya condition  — 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 into another. A false premise 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 W. 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 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 Brahe, who viewed the Milky Way as an ethereal substance, thought the new star that appeared in Cassiopoeia, in 1572, had been formed out of that matter. (“Progymnasmata” p. 795.) Kepler believed the star of 1606 had been likewise formed out of the ethereal substance that fills the universe (“De stella nova in pede Serpentarii,” p. 115). He attributed to that same ether the apparition of a luminous ring around the moon, during the total eclipse of the sun observed at Naples in 1605. (“Hypotheses Cosmogoniques, “C. Wolf.) Still later, in 1714, — the existence of a self-luminous matter was recognised by Halley (“Philosophical Transactions”). 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 astronomers 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 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:
While few will be found to deny “the magnificent audacity of this hypothesis,” it is impossible not to recognise 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; that, in spite of its closer proximity to the Sun, Venus is less dense than the Earth? Similarly, the more distant Uranus is more dense than Saturn? How is it that so many variations in the inclination of their axes and orbits are present in the supposed progeny of the central orb; that such startling variations in the size of the planets is noticeable; that the Satellites of Jupiter are more dense by .288 than their primary — that the phenomena of meteoric and cometic systems still remain unaccounted for? To quote the words of a Master: “They (the Occultists) 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 as great as 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 of 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 nebulae, or the physical constitution of the Sun, the Stars, or even the Moon, are imprudent to speak as 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 those bodies, giving and receiving it back, in our solar system, as the ‘Universal Life-Giver’ . . . . in 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.” 
The essential faculty possessed by all the cosmic and terrestrial elements, of generating 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 extra or intra intelligence, 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 those Elements (or within) — a dogma with us. It is not the fortuitous assistance of the atoms of Lucretius, who himself knew better, that built the Kosmos and all in it. Nature herself contradicts such a theory. Celestial space, containing matter so attenuated as is Ether, cannot be called on, with or without attraction, to explain the common motion of the sidereal hosts. Although the perfect accord of their mutual revolution indicates clearly the presence of a mechanical cause in Nature, Newton, who of all men had best right to trust to his deductions and views, was nevertheless forced to abandon the idea of ever explaining, by the laws of known Nature and its Material forces, the original impulse given to the millions of orbs. He recognised fully the limits that separate the action of natural Forces from that of the Intelligences that set the immutable laws into 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”?
To become complete and comprehensible, a cosmogonical theory 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 Upadhi 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, with respect to its scientific human creator, a Frankenstein’s monster; it will lead him into endless perplexities. The application of the 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 offsprings of necessity; one as indispensable to account for the transmission of light, as the other to explain the problem of the origin of the solar systems. The question with them is, how the same homogeneous matter  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 Sir W. Herschell’s paper, first presenting 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 has permitted, through spectrum analysis, the verification and corroboration of Sir W. 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 nebulae, was known from the highest antiquity. Anaxagoras taught that, having differentiated, the subsequent commixture of heterogeneous substances remained motionless and unorganized, until finally “the Mind” — the collective body of Dhyan Chohans, we say — began to work upon and communicated to it motion and order (Aristotle’s “Physica,” viii, 1.) The theory is now taken up in its first portion, that of any “Mind” interfering with it being rejected. Spectrum analysis reveals the existence of nebulae 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 nebulae 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 in it, and of other material substances known and unknown. The same in 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 on earth are formed owing to the condensation of hydrogen or 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, as 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 nebula, 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.” (Cosmogonical Hypotheses of Wolf.)
Since the discovery of the spectroscope, its magic power has revealed to its adepts only one single transformation of a star of this kind; and even that one showed directly the reverse of what is needed as proof in favour of the nebular theory; namely — a star transforming itself into a planetary nebula. As told in The Observatory (Vol. I., p. 185), the temporary star which appeared in the constellation Cygnus, in November, 1876, discovered by J. F. J. Schmidt, 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 on the Sun, why should not that star have blazed out owing to a collision of such precipitated planets, or, as many suggest, the appulse of a comet? Anyhow, the only known instance of a star transformation since 1811 is not favourable to the nebular theory. Moreover, on the question of this theory, as in all others, astronomers disagree.
In our own age, it was Buffon, before Laplace ever thought of it, who, very much struck by the identity of motion in the planets, was the first to propose the hypothesis of the planets and their satellites originating in the bosom of the Sun. Forthwith, and for the purpose, he invented a special comet, supposed to have torn out, by a powerful oblique blow, the quantity of matter necessary to their formation. Laplace gave its dues to the “comet” in his “Exposition du Systeme du Monde.” (Note VII.) 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 comprised in the solar system — and even beyond. It was a nebula of extremely small density, whose condensation gradually gave birth, by a mechanism that has hitherto never been explained, to the various bodies of our systems. 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 in 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.
“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 Western Science is now acquainted. While the spectroscope has shown the probable similarity (owing to the chemical action of terrestrial light upon the intercepted rays) of earthly 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” — say the Teachers (op. cit.). Mr. Crookes says almost the same in the fragment quoted from his lecture, “Elements and Meta-Elements.”
It is evident that, even if the men of science, leaving aside the difficulty arising for them out of such undeniable variety and heterogeneity of matter in the constitution of nebulae, 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,  — 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 Sthula-Sharira, the gross body, of the sevenfold Kosmos, they will have to face another problem; especially if they risk maintaining 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 actions 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 nebulae, — as Science itself teaches.
The telescope is unable to distinguish between the two, but the spectroscope can, and notices, therefore, an essential difference between their physical constitutions. 
“Some of these,” 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 nebulae 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 nebulae. If the primitive chaos were a cold luminous gas,  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 nebulae 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 to the acceptance of the nebular theory brought forward by the French savant, who concludes his interesting chapter 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.” 
If this is the last word of Science upon that subject, whither then should one 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 a certainty. What it is not — we learn from the erudite author of the “World-Life.” He tells us that: —
(I.) It “is not a theory of the evolution of the Universe . . . but only and primarily a genetic explanation of the phenomena of the solar system, and accessorily a co-ordination of the principal phenomena in the stellar and nebular firmament, as far as human vision has been able to penetrate.”
(II.) “That it does not regard the Comets as involved in that particular evolution which has produced the solar system.” (Esoteric doctrine does.)
(It does, because it, too, recognises 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.) “That 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, nonluminous 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 theologian as free as they ever were to seek for the origin of the modes of being.” 
But this is not all. Even the greatest philosopher of England — Mr. Herbert Spencer — arrayed himself against the 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.” 
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 ostracised 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 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, as we find another great scientist giving us a faint glimmer of it.
In an article in Popular Science Review (Vol. XIV., p. 252) 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.”
This is a happy forecast indeed. The day may come, then, when the “Natural Selection,” as taught by Mr. Darwin and Mr. Herbert Spencer, will form only a part, in its ultimate modification, of our Eastern doctrine of Evolution, which will be Manu and Kapila esoterically explained.
This is, then, the last word of physical science up to the present year, 1888. Mechanical laws will never be able to prove the homogeneity of primeval matter, except inferentially and as a desperate necessity, when there will remain no other issue — as in the case of Ether. Modern Science is secure only in its own domain and region; within the physical boundaries of our solar system, beyond which everything, every particle of matter, is different from the matter it knows: which matter exists in states of which Science can form no idea. That matter, which is truly homogeneous, is beyond human perceptions, if perception is tied down merely to the five senses. We feel its effects through those intelligence which are the results of its primeval differentiation, whom we name Dhyan-Chohans; called in the Hermetic works the “Seven Governors,” those to whom Pymander, the “Thought Divine,” refers as the Building Powers, and whom Asklepios calls the “Supernal Gods.” That matter — the real primordial substance, the noumenon of all the “matter” we know of, — even some of the astronomers have been led to believe in, and to despair of the possibility of ever accounting for rotation, gravitation, and the origin of any mechanical physical laws — unless these Intelligences be admitted by Science. In the above-quoted work upon astronomy, by Wolf,  the author endorses fully the theory of Kant, and the latter, if not in its general aspect, at any rate in some of its features, reminds one strongly of certain esoteric teachings. Here we have the world’s system reborn from its ashes, through a nebula; the emanation from the bodies, dead and dissolved in Space — resultant of the incandescence of the solar centre reanimated by the combustible matter of the planets. In this theory, generated and developed in the brain of a young man hardly twenty-five years of age, who had never left his native place, a small town of Northern Prussia (Konigsberg) one can hardly fail to recognise either an inspiring external power, or the reincarnation which the Occultists see in it. It fills a gap which Newton, with all his genius, failed to bridge. And surely it is our primeval matter, Akasa, that Kant had in view, when proposing to solve Newton’s difficulty and his failure to explain, by the natural forces, the primitive impulse imparted to the planets, by the postulation of a universally pervading primordial substance. For, as he remarks in chapter viii., if it is once admitted that the perfect harmony of the stars and planets and the coincidence of their orbital planes prove the existence of a natural cause, which would thus be the primal cause, “that cause cannot really be the matter which fills to-day the heavenly spaces.” It must be that which filled space — was space — originally, whose motion in differentiated matter was the origin of the actual movements of the sidereal bodies; and which, “in condensing itself in those very bodies, thus abandoned the space that is found void to-day.” In other words, it is that same matter of which are now composed the planets, comets, and the Sun himself, which, having in the origin formed itself into those bodies, has preserved its inherent quality of motion; which quality, now centred in their nuclei, directs all motion. A very slight alteration of words is needed, and a few additions, to make of this our Esoteric Doctrine.
The latter teaches that it is this original, primordial prima materia, divine and intelligent, the direct emanation of the Universal Mind — the Daiviprakriti (the divine light emanating from the Logos ) — which formed the nuclei of all the “self-moving” orbs in Kosmos. It is the informing, ever-present moving-power and life-principle, the vital soul of the suns, moons, planets, and even of our Earth. The former latent: the last one active — the invisible Ruler and guide of the gross body attached to, and connected with, its Soul, which is the spiritual emanation, after all, of these respective planetary Spirits.
Another quite occult doctrine is the theory of Kant, that the matter of which the inhabitants and the animals of other planets are formed is of a lighter and more subtle nature and of a more perfect conformation in proportion to their distance from the Sun. The latter is too full of Vital Electricity, of the physical, life-giving principle. Therefore, the men on Mars are more ethereal than we are, while those of Venus are more gross, though far more intelligent, if less spiritual.
The last doctrine is not quite ours — yet those Kantian theories are as metaphysical, and as transcendental as any occult doctrines; and more than one man of Science would, if he but dared speak his mind, accept them as Wolf does. From this Kantian mind and soul of the Suns and Stars to the Mahat (mind) and Prakriti of the Puranas, there is but a step. After all, the admission of this by Science would be only the admission of a natural cause, whether it would or would not stretch its belief to such metaphysical heights. But then Mahat, the mind, is a “God,” and physiology admits “mind” only as a temporary function of the material brain, and no more.
The Satan of Materialism now laughs at all alike, and denies the visible as well as the invisible. Seeing in light, heat, electricity, and even in the phenomenon of life, only properties inherent in matter, it laughs whenever life is called Vital Principle, and derides the idea of its being independent of and distinct from the organism.
But here again scientific opinions differ as in everything else, and there are several men of science who accept views very similar to ours. Consider, for instance, what Dr. Richardson, F.R.S. (elsewhere quoted at length) says of that “Vital principle,” which he calls “nervous ether” (“Popular Science Review,” Vol. 10): —
As Biology and Physiology now deny, in toto, the existence of a “vital principle,” this extract, together with de Quatrefages’ admission, is a clear confirmation that there are men of science who take the same views about “things occult” as theosophists and occultists do. These recognise a distinct vital principle independent of the organism — material, of course, as physical force cannot be divorced from matter, but of a substance existing in a state unknown to Science. Life for them is something more than the mere interaction of molecules and atoms. There is a vital principle without which no molecular combinations could ever have resulted in a living organism, least of all in the so-called “inorganic” matter of our plane of consciousness.
By “molecular combinations” is meant, of course, those of the matter of our present illusive perceptions, which matter energises only on this, our plane. And this is the chief point at issue. 
Thus the Occultists are not alone in their beliefs. Nor are they so foolish, after all, in rejecting even the “gravity” of modern Science along with other physical laws, and in accepting instead attraction and repulsion. They see, moreover, in these two opposite Forces only the two aspects of the universal unit, called “Manifesting Mind”; in which aspects, Occultism, through its great Seers, perceives an innumerable Host of operative Beings: Cosmic Dhyan-Chohans, Entities, whose essence, in its dual nature, is the Cause of all terrestrial phenomena. For that essence is co-substantial with the universal Electric Ocean, which is Life; and being dual, as said — positive and negative — it is the emanations of that duality that act now on earth under the name of “modes of motion”; even Force having now become objectionable as a word, for fear it should lead someone, even in thought, to separate it from matter! It is, as Occultism says, the dual effects ofthat dual essence, which have now been called centripetal and centrifugal forces, negative and positive poles, or polarity, heat and cold, light and darkness, etc., etc.
And it is maintained that even the Greek and Roman Catholic Christians, are wiser in believing, as they do — even if blindly connecting and tracing them all to an anthropomorphic god — in Angels, Archangels, Archons, Seraphs, and Morning Stars: in all those theological Deliciae humani generis, in short, that rule the cosmic elements, than Science is, in disbelieving in them altogether, and advocating its mechanical Forces. For these act very often with more than human intelligence and pertinency. Nevertheless, that intelligence is denied and attributed to blind chance. But, as De Maistre was right in calling the law of gravitation merely a word which replaced “the thing unknown” (Soirees), so are we right in applying the same remark to all the other Forces of Science. And if it is objected that the Count was an ardent Roman Catholic, then we may cite Le Couturier, as ardent a materialist, who said the same thing, as also did Herschell and many others. (Vide Musee des Sciences, August, 1856.)
From Gods to men, from Worlds to atoms, from a star to a rush-light, from the Sun to the vital heat of the meanest organic being — the world of Form and Existence is an immense chain, whose links are all connected. The law of Analogy is the first key to the world-problem, and these links have to be studied co-ordinately in their occult relations to each other.
When, therefore, the Secret Doctrine — postulating that conditioned or limited space (location) has no real being except in this world of illusion, or, in other words, in our perceptive faculties — teaches that every one of the higher, as of the lower worlds, is interblended with our own objective world; that millions of things and beings are, in point of localization, around and in us, as we are around, with, and in them; it is no metaphysical figure of speech, but a sober fact in Nature, however incomprehensible to our senses.
But one has to understand the phraseology of Occultism before criticising what it asserts. For example, the Doctrine refuses (as Science does, in one sense) to use the words “above” and “below,” “higher” and “lower,” in reference to invisible spheres, as being without meaning. Even the terms “East” and “West” are merely conventional, necessary only to aid our human perceptions. For, though the Earth has its two fixed points in the poles, North and South, yet both East and West are variable relatively to our own position on the Earth’s surface, and in consequence of its rotation from West to East. Hence, when “other worlds” are mentioned — whether better or worse, more spiritual or still more material, though both invisible — the Occultist does not locate these spheres either outside or inside our Earth, as the theologians and the poets do; for their location is nowhere in the space known to, and conceived by, the profane. They are, as it were, blended with our world — interpenetrating it and interpenetrated by it. There are millions and millions of worlds and firmaments visible to us; there still greater numbers beyond those visible to the telescopes, and many of the latter kind do not belong to our objective sphere of existence. Although as invisible as if they were millions of miles beyond our solar system, they are yet with us, near us, within our own world, as objective and material to their respective inhabitants as ours is to us. But, again, the relation of these worlds to ours is not that of a series of egg-shaped boxes enclosed one within the other, like the toys called Chinese nests; each is entirely under its own special laws and conditions, having no direct relation to our sphere. The inhabitants of these, as already said, may be, for all we know, or feel, passing through and around us as if through empty space, their very habitations and countries being interblended with ours, though not disturbing our vision, because we have not yet the faculties necessary for discerning them. Yet by their spiritual sight the Adepts, and even some seers and sensitives, are always able to discern, whether in a greater or smaller degree, the presence and close proximity to us of Beings pertaining to other spheres of life. Those of the (spiritually) higher worlds, communicate only with those terrestrial mortals who ascend to them, through individual efforts, on to the higher plane they are occupying. . . .
“The sons of Bhumi (Earth) regard the Sons of Deva-lokas (angel-spheres) as their gods; and the Sons of lower kingdoms look up to the men of Bhumi, as to their devas (gods); men remaining unaware of it in their blindness. . . . They (men) tremble before them while using them (for magical purposes). . . . The first Race of Men were the “Mind-born sons” of the former. They (the pitris and devas) are our progenitors. . . . (Book II. of Commentary on the Book of dzyan.)
“Educated people,” so-called, deride the idea of Sylphs, Salamanders, Undines, and Gnomes; the men of science regard as an insult any mention of such superstitions; and with a contempt of logic and common good sense, that is often the prerogative of “accepted authority,” they allow those, whom it is their duty to instruct, to labour under the absurd impression that in the whole Kosmos, or at any rate in our own atmosphere, there are no other conscious, intelligent beings, save ourselves.  Any other humanity (composed of distinct human beings) than a mankind with two legs, two arms, and a head with man’s features on it, would not be called human; though the etymology of the word would seem to have little to do with the general appearance of a creature. Thus, while Science sternly rejects even the possibility of there being such (to us, generally) invisible creatures, Society, while believing in it all secretly, is made to deride the idea openly. It hails with mirth such works as the Count de Gabalis, and fails to understand that open satire is the securest mask.
Nevertheless, such invisible worlds do exist. Inhabited as thickly as our own is, they are scattered throughout apparent Space in immense number; some far more material than our own world, others gradually etherealizing until they become formless and are as “Breaths.” That our physical eye does not see them, is no reason to disbelieve in them; physicists can see neither their ether, atoms, nor “modes of motion,” or Forces. Yet they accept and teach them.
If we find, even in the natural world with which we are acquainted, matter affording a partial analogy in the difficult conception of such invisible worlds, there seems little difficulty in recognizing the possibility of such a presence. The tail of a comet, which, though attracting our attention by virtue of its luminosity, yet does not disturb or impede our vision of objects, which we perceive through and beyond it, affords the first stepping-stone toward a proof of the same. The tail of a comet passes rapidly across our horizon, and we should neither feel it, nor be cognizant of its passage, but for the brilliant coruscation, often perceived only by a few interested in the phenomenon, while everyone else remains ignorant of its presence and passage through, or across, a portion of our globe. This tail may, or may not, be an integral portion of the being of the comet, but its tenuity subserves our purpose as an illustration. Indeed, it is no question of superstition, but simply a result of transcendental science, and of logic still more, to admit the existence of worlds formed of even far more attenuated matter than the tail of a comet. By denying such a possibility, Science has played for the last century into the hands of neither philosophy nor true religion, but simply into those of theology. To be able to dispute the better the plurality of even material worlds, a belief thought by many churchmen incompatible with the teachings and doctrines of the Bible,  Maxwell had to calumniate the memory of Newton, and try to convince his public that the principles contained in the Newtonian philosophy are those “which lie at the foundation of all atheistical systems.” (Vide Vol. II., “Plurality of Worlds.”)
“Dr. Whewell disputed the plurality of worlds by appeal to scientific evidence,” writes Professor Winchell.  And if even the habitability of physical worlds, of planets, and distant stars which shine in myriads over our heads is so disputed, how little chance is there for the acceptance of invisible worlds within the apparently transparent space of our own!
But, if we can conceive of a world composed (for our senses) of matter still more attenuated than the tail of a comet, hence of inhabitants in it who are as ethereal, in proportion to their globe, as we are in comparison with our rocky, hard-crusted earth, no wonder if we do not perceive them, nor sense their presence or even existence. Only, in what is the idea contrary to science? Cannot men and animals, plants and rocks, be supposed to be endowed with quite a different set of senses from those we possess? Cannot their organisms be born, developed, and exist, under other laws of being than those that rule our little world? Is it absolutely necessary that every corporeal being should be clothed in “coats of skin” like those that Adam and Eve were provided with in the legend of Genesis? Corporeality, we are told, however, by more than one man of science, “may exist under very divergent conditions.”  Do not we know through the discoveries of that very all-denying science that we are surrounded by myriads of invisible lives? If these microbes, bacteria and the tutti quanti of the infinitesimally small, are invisible to us by virtue of their minuteness, cannot there be, at the other pole of it, beings as invisible owing to the quality of their texture or matter — to its tenuity, in fact? Conversely, as to the effects of cometary matter, have we not another example of a half visible form of life and matter? The ray of sunlight entering our apartment, reveals in its passage myriads of tiny beings living their little life and ceasing to be, independent and heedless of whether they are perceived or not by our grosser materiality. And so again, of the microbes and bacteria and such-like unseen beings in other elements. We passed them by, during those long centuries of dreary ignorance, after the lamp of knowledge in the heathen and highly philosophical systems had ceased to throw its bright light on the ages of intolerance and bigotry during early Christianity; and we would fain pass them by again now.
And yet these lives surrounded us then as they do now. They have worked on, obedient to their own laws, and it is only as they were gradually revealed by Science that we have begun to take cognisance of them, as of the effects produced by them. How long has it taken the world, as it is now, to become what it is? If it can be said of cosmic dust that some of it comes to the present day “which had never belonged to the earth before” (“World-Life”), how much more logical to believe — as the Occultists do — that through the countless ages and millions of years that have rolled away, since that dust aggregated and formed the globe we live in around its nucleus of intelligent primeval substance — many humanities, differing from our present mankind, as greatly as the one which will evolve millions of years hence will differ from our races, appeared but to disappear from the face of the earth, as our own will. Those primitive and far-distant humanities, having, as geologists think, left no tangible relics of themselves, are denied. All trace of them is swept away, and therefore they have never existed. Yet their relics — a very few of them, truly — are to be found, and they have to be discovered by geological research. Though, even if they were never to be met with, there is no reason to say that no men could have ever lived in those geological times, to which the period of their presence on earth is assigned. For their organisms needed no warm blood, no atmosphere, no feeding; the author of “World-Life” is right, and it is no such great extreme to believe even as we do, that as there may be, on scientific hypotheses, “psychic natures enshrined in indestructible flint and platinum” to this day, so there were psychic natures enshrined in forms of equal indestructible primeval matter — the real forefathers of our fifth race.
When we speak, therefore, as in Book II., of men who inhabited this globe 18,000,000 years back, we have in the mind neither the men of our present races, nor the present atmospheric laws, thermal conditions, etc. The Earth and mankind, like the Sun, Moon, and planets, have all their growth, changes, developments, and gradual evolution in their life-periods; they are born, become infants, then children, adolescents, grown-up bodies, grow old, and finally die. Why should not Mankind be also under this universal law? Says Uriel to Enoch: “Behold, I have showed thee all things. Thou seest the Sun, Moon, and those which conduct the stars of heaven, which cause all their operations, seasons, and arrivals to return. . . . In the days of sinners the years shall be shortened . . . everything done on Earth shall be subverted . . . the moon shall change its laws” . . . etc. (Ch. lxxix.)
The “days of Sinners” meant the days when matter would be in its full sway on Earth, and man would have reached the apex of physical development in stature and animality. That came to pass during the period of the Atlanteans, about the middle point of their Race (the 4th), which was drowned as prophesied by Uriel. Since then man began decreasing in physical stature, strength, and years, as will be shown in Book II. But as we are in the mid-point of our sub-race of the Fifth Root Race — the acme of materiality in each — therefore the animal propensities, though more refined, are not the less developed for that: and they are so chiefly in civilized countries.
Some years ago we remarked  that “the Esoteric Doctrine may well be called the ‘thread-doctrine,’ since, like Sutratman, in the Vedanta philosophy,†  it passes through and strings together all the ancient philosophical religious systems, and reconciles and explains them all.” We say now it does more. It not only reconciles the various and apparently conflicting systems, but it checks the discoveries of modern exact science, and shows some of them to be necessarily correct, since they are found corroborated in the ancient records. All this will, no doubt, be regarded as terribly impertinent and disrespectful, a veritable crime of lese-Science; nevertheless, it is a fact.
Science is, undeniably, ultra-materialistic in our days; but it finds, in one sense, its justification. Nature behaving in actu ever esoterically, and being, as the Kabalists say, in abscondito, can only be judged by the profane through her appearance, and that appearance is always deceitful on the physical plane. On the other hand, the naturalists refuse to blend physics with metaphysics, the body with its informing soul and spirit, which they prefer ignoring. This is a matter of choice with some, while the minority strive very sensibly to enlarge the domain of physical science by trespassing on the forbidden grounds of metaphysics, so distasteful to some materialists. These scientists are wise in their generation. For all their wonderful discoveries would go for nothing, and remain for ever headless bodies, unless they lift the veil of matter and strain their eyes to see beyond. Now that they have studied nature in the length, breadth, and thickness of her physical frame, it is time to remove the skeleton to the second plane and search within the unknown depths for the living and real entity, for its sub-stance — the noumenon of evanescent matter. It is only by acting on such lines that some of the truths, now called “exploded superstitions,” will be discovered to be facts and the relics of ancient knowledge and wisdom.
One of such “degrading” beliefs — in the opinion of the all-denying sceptic — is found in the idea that Kosmos, besides its objective planetary inhabitants, its humanities in other inhabited worlds, is full of invisible, intelligent Existences. The so-called Arch-Angels, Angels and Spirits, of the West, copies of their prototypes, the Dhyan-Chohans, the Devas and Pitris, of the East, are no real Beings but fictions. On this point Materialistic Science is inexorable. To support its position, it upsets its own axiomatic law of uniformity in the laws of nature, that of continuity, and all the logical sequence of analogies in the evolution of being. The masses of the profane are asked, and made, to believe that the accumulated testimony of History, which shows even the Atheists of old — such as Epicurus and Democritus — believing in gods, was false; and that philosophers like Socrates and Plato, asserting their existence, were mistaken enthusiasts and fools. If we hold our opinions merely on historical grounds, on the authority of legions of the most eminent Sages, Neo-Platonists, Mystics of all the ages, from Pythagoras down to the eminent Scientists and Professors of the present century, who, if they reject “gods,” believe in “spirits,” shall we consider such authorities as weak-minded and foolish as any Roman Catholic peasant, who believes in and prays to his once human Saint, or the Archangel, St. Michael? But is there no difference between the belief of the peasant and that of the Western heirs to the Rosicrucians and Alchemists of the Middle Ages? Is it the Van Helmonts, the Khunraths, the Paracelsuses and Agrippas, from Roger Bacon down to St. Germain, who were all blind enthusiasts, hysteriacs or cheats, or is it the handful of modern sceptics — the “leaders of thought” — who are struck with the cecity of negation? The latter, we opine. It would be a miracle indeed, quite an abnormal fact in the realm of probabilities and logic, were that handful of negators to be the sole custodians of truth, while the million-strong hosts of believers in gods, angels, and spirits — in Europe and America alone — namely, Greek and Latin Christians, Theosophists, Spiritualists, Mystics, etc., etc., should be no better than deluded fanatics and hallucinated mediums, and often no higher than the victims of deceivers and impostors! However varying in their external presentations and dogmas, beliefs in the Hosts of invisible Intelligences of various grades have all the same foundation. Truth and error are mixed in all. The exact extent, depth, breadth, and length of the mysteries of Nature are to be found only in Eastern esoteric sciences. So vast and so profound are these that hardly a few, a very few of the highest Initiates — those whose very existence is known but to a small number of Adepts — are capable of assimilating the knowledge. Yet it is all there, and one by one facts and processes in Nature’s workshops are permitted to find their way into the exact Sciences, while mysterious help is given to rare individuals in unravelling its arcana. It is at the close of great Cycles, in connection with racial development, that such events generally take place. We are at the very close of the cycle of 5,000 years of the present Aryan Kaliyuga; and between this time and 1897 there will be a large rent made in the Veil of Nature, and materialistic science will receive a death-blow.
Without throwing any discredit upon time-honoured beliefs, in whatever direction, we are forced to draw a marked line between blind faith, evolved by theologies, and knowledge due to the independent researches of long generations of adepts; between, in short, faith and philosophy. There have been — in all ages — undeniably learned and good men who, having been reared in sectarian beliefs, died in their crystallized convictions. For Protestants, the garden of Eden is the primeval point of departure in the drama of Humanity, and the solemn tragedy on the summit of Calvary, the prelude to the hoped-for Millennium. For Roman Catholics, Satan is at the foundation of Kosmos, Christ in its centre, and Antichrist at its apex. For both, the Hierarchy of Being begins and ends within the narrow frames of their respective theologies: one self-created personal God and an Empyrean ringing with the Hallelujas of created angels; the rest, false gods, Satan and fiends.
Theophilosophy proceeds on broader lines. From the very beginning of AEons — in time and space in our Round and Globe — the Mysteries of Nature (at any rate, those which it is lawful for our races to know) were recorded by the pupils of those same now invisible “heavenly men,” in geometrical figures and symbols. The keys thereto passed from one generation of “wise men” to the other. Some of the symbols, thus passed from the east to the west, were brought therefrom by Pythagoras, who was not the inventor of his famous “Triangle.” The latter figure, along with the plane cube and circle, are more eloquent and scientific descriptions of the order of the evolution of the Universe, spiritual and psychic, as well as physical, than volumes of descriptive Cosmogonies and revealed “Geneses.” The ten points inscribed within that “Pythagorean triangle” are worth all the theogonies and angelologies ever emanated from the theological brain. For he who interprets them — on their very face, and in the order given — will find in these seventeen points (the seven Mathematical Points hidden) the uninterrupted series of the genealogies from the first Heavenly to terrestrial man. And, as they give the order of Beings, so they reveal the order in which were evolved the Kosmos, our earth, and the primordial elements by which the latter was generated. Begotten in the invisible Depths, and in the womb of the same “Mother” as its fellow-globes — he who will master the mysteries of our Earth, will have mastered those of all others.
Whatever ignorance, pride or fanaticism may suggest to the contrary, Esoteric Cosmology can be shown inseparably connected with both philosophy and modern science. The gods of the ancients, the monads — from Pythagoras down to Leibnitz — and the atoms of the present materialistic schools (as borrowed by them from the theories of the old Greek Atomists) are only a compound unit, or a graduated unity like the human frame, which begins with body and ends with spirit. In the occult sciences they can be studied separately, but never mastered unless viewed in their mutual correlations during their life-cycle, and as a Universal Unity during Pralayas.
La Pluche shows sincerity, but gives a poor idea of his philosophical capacities when declaring his personal views on the Monad or the Mathematical Point. “A point,” he says, “is enough to put all the schools in the world in a combustion. But what need has man to know that point, since the creation of such a small being is beyond his power? A fortiori, philosophy acts against probability when, from that point which absorbs and disconcerts all her meditations, she presumes to pass on to the generation of the world. . . .”
Philosophy, however, could never have formed its conception of a logical, universal, and absolute Deity if it had no Mathematical Point within the Circle to base its speculations upon. It is only the manifested Point, lost to our senses after its pregenetic appearance in the infinitude and incognizability of the Circle, that made a reconciliation between philosophy and theology possible — on condition that the latter should abandon its crude materialistic dogmas. And it is because it has so unwisely rejected the Pythagorean Monad and geometrical figures, that Christian theology has evolved its self-created human and personal God, the monstrous Head from whence flow in two streams the dogmas of Salvation and Damnation. This is so true that even those clergymen who would be philosophers and who were masons, have, in their arbitrary interpretations, fathered upon the ancient sages the queer idea that “the Monad represented (with them) the throne of the Omnipotent Deity, placed in the centre of the Empyrean to indicate T.G.A.O.T.U.”  — read “the Great Architect of the Universe.” A curious explanation this, more Masonic than strictly Pythagorean.
Nor did the “hierogram within a Circle, or equilateral Triangle,” ever mean “the exemplification of the unity of the divine Essence”; for this was exemplified by the plane of the boundless Circle. What it really meant was the triune co-equal Nature of the first differentiated Substance, or the con-substantiality of the (manifested) Spirit, matter and the Universe — their “Son,” who proceeds from the Point (the real, esoteric Logos) or the Pythagorean Monad. For the Greek Monas signifies “Unity” in its primary sense. Those unable to seize the difference between the monad — the Universal Unit — and the Monads orthe manifested Unity, as also between the ever-hidden and the revealed Logos or the Word, ought never to meddle in philosophy, let alone the Esoteric Sciences. It is needless to remind the educated reader of Kant’s Thesis to demonstrate his second Antinomy.  Those who have read and understood it will see clearly the line we draw between the absolutely Ideal Universe and the invisible though manifested Kosmos. Our Gods and Monads are not the Elements of extension itself, but only those of the invisible reality which is the basis of the manifested Kosmos. Neither esoteric philosophy, nor Kant, nor Leibnitz would ever admit that extension can be composed of simple or unextended parts. But theologian-philosophers will not grasp this. The Circle and the Point, which latter retires into and merges with the former, after having emanated the first three points and connected them with lines, thus forming the first noumenal basis of the Second Triangle in the Manifested World, have ever been an insuperable obstacle to theological flights into dogmatic Empyreans. On the authority of this Archaic Symbol, a male, personal god, the Creator and Father of all, becomes a third-rate emanation, the Sephiroth standing fourth in descent, and on the left hand of En-Soph (see the Kabalistic Tree of Life). Hence, the Monad is degraded into a Vehicle — a “throne”!
The Monad — only the emanation and reflection of the Point (Logos) in the phenomenal World — becomes, as the apex of the manifested equilateral triangle, the “Father.” The left side or line is the Duad, the “Mother,” regarded as the evil, counteracting principle (Plutarch, De Placitis Placitorum); the right side represents the Son (“his Mother’s husband” in every Cosmogony, as one with the apex); at the basic line is the Universal plane of productive Nature, unifying on the phenomenal plane Father-Mother-Son, as these were unified in the apex, in the supersensuous World.  By mystic transmutation they became the Quaternary — the triangle became the Tetraktis. This transcendental application of geometry to Cosmic and divine theogony — the Alpha and the Omega of mystical conception — became dwarfed after Pythagoras by Aristotle. By omitting the Point and the Circle, and taking no account of the apex, he reduced the metaphysical value of the idea, and thus limited the doctrine of magnitude to a simple triad — the line, the surface, and the body. His modern heirs, who play at Idealism, have interpreted these three geometrical figures as Space, Force, and Matter — “the potencies of an interacting Unity.”  Materialistic Science, perceiving but the basic line of the manifested “triangle” — the plane of matter — translates it practically as (Father)-Matter, (Mother)-Matter, and (Son)-Matter, and theoretically as Matter, Force, and Correlation.
But to the average physicist, as remarked by a Kabalist, “Space, Force, Matter, are, what signs in algebra are to the mathematician, merely conventional symbols;” or “Force as force, and Matter as matter, are as absolutely unknowable as is the assumed empty space in which they are held to interact.” As symbols representing abstractions, “the physicist bases reasoned hypotheses of the origin of things . . . . and sees three needs in what he terms creation: (a) a place wherein to create; (b) a medium by which to create; (c) a material from which to create. And in giving a logical expression to this hypothesis through the terms space, force, matter, he believes he has proved the existence of that which each of these represents as he conceives it to be.” 
The physicist who regards Space merely as a representation of our mind, or extension unrelated to things in it, which Locke defined as capable of neither resistance nor motion; the paradoxical materialist, who would have a void there, where he can see no matter, would reject with the utmost contempt the proposition that “Space is a substantial though (apparently) an absolutely unknowable living Entity.” (New Aspects, p. 9.) Such is, nevertheless, the Kabalistic teaching, and it is that of Archaic philosophy. Space is the real world, while our world is an artificial one. It is the One Unity throughout its infinitude: in its bottomless depths as on its illusive surface; a surface studded with countless phenomenal Universes, systems and mirage-like worlds. Nevertheless, to the Eastern Occultist, who is an objective Idealist at the bottom, in the real world, which is a Unity of Forces, there is “a connection of all matter in the plenum,” as Leibnitz would say. This is symbolized in the Pythagorean Triangle. It consists of ten points inscribed pyramid-like (from one to the last four) within its three lines, and it symbolizes the Universe in the famous Pythagorean Decad. The upper single dot is a Monad, and represents a Unit-Point, which is the Unity from whence all proceeds, and all is of the same essence with it. While the ten dots within the triangle represent the phenomenal world, the three sides of the equilateral triangle which enclose the pyramid of dots are the barriers of noumenal Matter, or Substance, that separate it from the world of Thought. “Pythagoras considered a point to correspond in proportion to unity; a line to 2; a superficies to 3; a solid to 4; and he defined a point as a Monad having position, and the beginning of all things; a line was thought to correspond with duality, because it was produced by the first motion from indivisible nature, and formed the junction of two points. A superficies was compared to the number three because it is the first of all causes that are found in figures; for a circle, which is the principal of all round figures, comprises a triad, in centre — space — circumference. But a triangle, which is the first of all rectilineal figures, is included in a ternary, and receives its form according to that number; and was considered by the Pythagoreans to be the creator of all sublunary things. The four points at the base of the Pythagorean triangle correspond with a solid or cube, which combines the principles of length, breadth, and thickness, for no solid can have less than four extreme boundary points.” (Pythag. Triangle, p. 19.)
It is argued that “the human mind cannot conceive an indivisible unit short of the annihilation of the idea with its subject.” This is an error, as the Pythagoreans have proved, and a number of Seers before them, although there is a special training for it, and although the profane mind can hardly grasp it. But there are such things as metamathematics and metageometry. Even mathematics pure and simple proceed from the Universal to the particular, from the mathematical, hence indivisible Point, to solid figures. The teaching originated in India, and was taught in Europe by Pythagoras, who, throwing a veil over the Circle and the Point — which no living man can define except as incomprehensible abstractions — laid the origin of the differentiated Cosmic matter in the basic or horizontal line of the Triangle. Thus the latter became the earliest of geometrical figures. The author of “New Aspects of Life” and of the Kabalistic Mysteries — objects to the objectivization, so to speak, of the Pythagorean conception and use of the equilateral triangle, and calls it a misnomer. His argument that a solid equilateral body — “one whose base, and each of its sides, form equal triangles — must have four co-equal sides or surfaces, while a triangular plane will as necessarily possess five,” demonstrates on the contrary the grandeur of the conception in all its esoteric application to the idea of the pregenesis, and the genesis of Kosmos. Granted, that an ideal triangle, depicted by mathematical, imaginary lines “can have no sides at all, being simply a phantom of the mind (if sides be imputed to which, they must be the sides of the object it constructively represents).” But in such case most of the scientific hypotheses are no better than “phantoms of the mind”; they are unverifiable, except on inference, and have been adopted merely to answer scientific necessities. Furthermore, the ideal triangle — “as the abstract idea of a triangular body, and, therefore, as the type of an abstract idea” — accomplished and carried out to perfection the double symbolism intended. As an emblem applicable to the objective idea, the simple triangle became a solid. When repeated in stone on the four cardinal points, it assumed the shape of the Pyramid — the symbol of the phenomenal merging into the noumenal Universe of thought — at the apex of the four triangles; and, as an “imaginary figure constructed of three mathematical lines,” it symbolized the subjective spheres — those lines “enclosing a mathematical space — which is equal to nothing enclosing nothing.” Because, to the senses and the untrained consciousness of profane and scientist, everything beyond the line of differentiated matter — i.e., outside of, and beyond the realm of even the most spiritual substance — has to remain for ever equal to nothing. It is the Ain-Soph — the No-thing.
Yet these “phantoms of the mind” are in truth no greater abstractions than the abstract ideas in general upon evolution and physical development — e.g., Gravity, Matter, Force, etc. — on which the exact sciences are based. Our most eminent chemists and physicists are earnestly pursuing the not hopeless attempt of finally tracing to its hiding-place the protyle, or the basic line of the Pythagorean triangle. The latter is, as said, the grandest conception imaginable, as it symbolizes both the ideal and the visible universes.  For if “the possible unit is only a possibility as an actuality of nature, as an individual of any kind,” and as every individual natural object is capable of division, and by division loses its unity, or ceases to be a unit,  it is so only in the realm of exact sciences in a world as deceptive as it is illusive. In the realm of the Esoteric sciences the unit divided ad infinitum, instead of losing its unity, approaches with every division the planes of the only eternal Reality. The eye of the Seer can follow and behold it in all its pregenetic glory. This same idea of the reality of the subjective, and the unreality of the objective universes, is found at the bottom of the Pythagorean and Platonic teachings — limited to the Elect alone; for Porphyry, speaking of the Monad and the Duad, says that the former only was considered substantial and real, “that most simple Being, the cause of all unity and the measure of all things.”
But the Duad, although the origin of Evil, or Matter — thence unreal in philosophy — is still Substance during Manvantara, and is often called the third monad, in Occultism, and the connecting line as between two Points, . . . or Numbers which proceeded from that, “which was before all Numbers,” as expressed by Rabbi Barahiel. And from this Duad proceeded all the Scintillas of the three upper and the four lower worlds or planes — which are in constant interaction and correspondence. This is a teaching which the Kabala has in common with Eastern Occultism. For in the occult philosophy there are the “One Cause” and the “Primal Cause,” which latter thus becomes, paradoxically, the second, as clearly expressed by the author of the “Qabbalah, from the philosophical writings of Ibn Gabirol,” — “in the treatment of the Primal cause, two things must be considered, the Primal Cause per se, and the relation and connection of the Primal Cause with the visible and unseen universe.” Thus he shows the early Hebrews following in the steps of the Oriental philosophy — Chaldean, Persian, Hindu, Arabic, etc. Their Primal Cause was designated at first “by the triadic Shaddai, the (triune) Almighty, subsequently by the Tetragrammaton, YHVH, symbol of the Past, Present, and Future,” and, let us add, of the eternal Is, or the I Am. Moreover, in the Kabala the name YHVH (or Jehovah) expresses a He and a She, male and female, two in one, or Hokhmah and Binah, and his, or rather their Shekinah or synthesizing spirit (grace), which makes again of the Duad a Triad. This is demonstrated in the Jewish Liturgy for Pentecost, and the prayer, “In the name of Unity, of the Holy and Blessed Hu (He), and His Shekinah, the Hidden and Concealed Hu, blessed be YHVH (the Quaternary) for ever.” “Ha is said to be masculine and YAH feminine, together they make the i.e., one YHVH. One, but of a male-female nature. The Shekinah is always considered in the Qabbalah as feminine” (p. 175). And so it is considered in the exoteric Puranas, for Shekinah is no more than Sakti — the female double or lining of any god, in such case. And so it was with the early Christians whose Holy Spirit was feminine, as Sophia was with the Gnostics. But in the transcendental Chaldean Kabala or “Book of Numbers,” “Shekinah” is sexless, and the purest abstraction, a State, like Nirvana, not subject or object or anything except an absolute Presence.
Thus it is only in the anthropomorphised systems (such as the Kabala has now greatly become) that Shekinah-Sakti is feminine. As such she becomes the Duad of Pythagoras, the two straight lines of the symbol that can never meet, which therefore form no geometrical figure and are the symbol of matter. Out of this Duad, when united in one basic line of the triangle on the lower plane (the upper Triangle of the Sephirothal Tree), emerge the Elohim, or Deity in Cosmic Nature, with the true Kabalists the lowest designation, translated in the Bible “God” (see the same work and page).  Out of these issue the Scintillas.
The Scintillas are the “Souls,” and these Souls appear in the three-fold form of Monads (units), atoms and gods — according to our teaching. “Every atom becomes a visible complex unit (a molecule), and once attracted into the sphere of terrestrial activity, the Monadic Essence, passing through the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms, becomes man.” (Esot. Catechism.) Again, “God, Monad, and Atom are the correspondences of Spirit, Mind, and Body (Atma, Manas and Sthula Sarira) in man.” In their septenary aggregation they are the “Heavenly Man” (see Kabala for the latter term); thus, terrestrial man is the provisional reflection of the Heavenly. . . . . “The Monads (Jivas) are the Souls of the Atoms, both are the fabric in which the Chohans (Dhyanis, gods) cloth themselves when a form is needed.” (Esot. Cat.)
This relates to Cosmic and sub-planetary Monads, not to the Super-Cosmic Monas (the Pythagorean Monad) as called, in its synthetic character, by the Pantheistical Peripatetics. The Monads of the present dissertation are treated from the standpoint of their individuality, as atomic Souls, before these atoms descend into pure terrestrial form. For this descent into concrete matter marks the medial point of their own individual pilgrimage. Here, losing in the mineral kingdom their individuality, they begin to ascend through the seven states of terrestrial evolution to that point where a correspondence is firmly established between the human and Deva (divine) consciousness. At present, however, we are not concerned with their terrestrial metamorphoses and tribulations, but with their life and behaviour in Space, on planes wherein the eye of the most intuitional chemist and physicist cannot reach them — unless, indeed, he develops in himself highly clairvoyant faculties.
It is well known that Leibnitz came several times very near the truth, but defined monadic evolution incorrectly, which is not to be wondered at, since he was not an Initiate, nor even a Mystic, only a very intuitional philosopher. Yet no psycho-physicist ever came nearer than he has to the esoteric general outline of evolution. This evolution — viewed from its several standpoints — i.e., as the universal and the individualized Monad; and the chief aspects of the Evolving Energy, after differentiation — the purely Spiritual, the Intellectual, the Psychic and the Physical — may be thus formulated as an invariable law; a descent of Spirit into Matter, equivalent to an ascent in physical evolution; a re-ascent from the depths of materiality towards its status quo ante, with a corresponding dissipation of concrete form and substance up to the Laya state, or what Science calls “the zero-point,” and beyond.
These states — once the spirit of Esoteric philosophy is grasped — become absolutely necessary from simple logical and analogical considerations. Physical Science having now ascertained, through its department of Chemistry, the invariable law of this evolution of atoms — from their “protylean” state down to that of a physical and then a chemical particle (or molecule) — cannot well reject the same as a general law. And once it is forced by its enemies — Metaphysics and Psychology  — out of its alleged impregnable strongholds, it will find it more difficult than it now appears to refuse room in the Spaces of Space to Planetary Spirits (gods), Elementals, and even the Elementary Spooks or Ghosts, and others. Already Figuier and Paul D’Assier, two Positivists and Materialists, have succumbed before this logical necessity. Other and still greater Scientists will follow in that “intellectual Fall.” They will be driven out of their position not by spiritual, theosophical, or any other physical or even mental phenomena, but simply by the enormous gaps and chasms that open daily and will still be opening before them, as one discovery follows the other, until they are finally knocked off their feet by the ninth wave of simple common sense.
Here is an example: Prof. W. Crookes’ latest discovery of what he has named protyle. In the “Notes on the Bhagavat Gita,” by one of the best metaphysicians and Vedantic scholars in India,  the lecturer, referring cautiously to “things occult” in that great Indian esoteric work, makes a remark as suggestive as it is strictly correct. “. . . Into the details of the evolution of the solar system itself,” he says, “it is not necessary for me to enter. You may gather some idea as to the way in which the various elements start into existence from these three principles into which Mulaprakriti is differentiated (the Pythagorean triangle), by examining the lecture delivered by Professor Crookes a short time ago upon the so-called elements of modern chemistry. This lecture will give you some idea of the way in which these Elements spring from Vishwanara,  the most objective of these three principles, which seems to stand in the place of the protyle mentioned in that lecture. Except in a few particulars, this lecture seems to give the outlines of the theory of physical evolution on the plane of Vishwanara, and is, so far as I know, the nearest approach made by modern investigators to the real occult theory on the subject.”
These words will be re-echoed and approved by every Eastern Occultist. Much from the lectures by Prof. Crookes has already been quoted in § XII. of these Addenda. Since then, there has been another lecture delivered, as remarkable as the first one, on the “Genesis of the Elements,”  and also a third one. Here we have almost a corroboration of the teachings of Esoteric philosophy concerning the mode of primeval evolution. It is, indeed, as near an approach, made by a great scholar and specialist in chemistry,  to the Secret Doctrine, as could be made apart from the application of the monads and atoms to the dogmas of pure transcendental metaphysics, and their connection and correlation with “Gods and intelligent Conscious Monads.” But Chemistry is now on its ascending plane, thanks to one of its highest European representatives. It is impossible for it to go back to that day when materialism regarded its sub-elements as absolutely simple and homogeneous bodies, which it had raised, in its blindness, to the rank of elements. The mask has been snatched off by too clever a hand for there to be any fear of a new disguise. And after years of pseudology, of bastard molecules parading under the name of elements, behind and beyond which there could be nought but void, a great professor of chemistry asks once more: “What are these elements, whence do they come, what is their signification? . . . . These elements perplex us in our researches, baffle us in our speculations, and haunt us in our very dreams. They stretch like an unknown sea before us mocking — mystifying, and murmuring strange revelations and possibilities.” (Gen. of Elem., p. 1.) Those who are heirs to primeval revelations have taught these “possibilities” in every century, but have never found a fair hearing. The truths inspired to Kepler, Leibnitz, Gassendi, Swedenborg, etc., were ever alloyed with their own speculations in one or another predetermined direction —hence distorted. But now one of the great truths has dawned upon an eminent professor of modern exact science, and he fearlessly proclaims as a fundamental axiom that Science has not made itself acquainted, so far, with real simple elements. For Prof. Crookes tells his audience:
“If I venture to say that our commonly received elements are not simple and primordial, that they have not arisen by chance or have not been created in a desultory and mechanical manner, but have been evolved from simpler matters — or perhaps, indeed, from one sole kind of matter — I do but give formal utterance to an idea which has been, so to speak, for some time ‘in the air’ of science. Chemists, physicists, philosophers of the highest merit, declare explicitly their belief that the seventy (or thereabouts) elements of our text-books are not the pillars of Hercules which we must never hope to pass.” . . . “Philosophers in the present as in the past — men who certainly have not worked in the laboratory — have reached the same view from another side.” Thus Mr. Herbert Spencer records his conviction that ‘the chemical atoms are produced from the true or physical atoms by processes of evolution under conditions which chemistry has not yet been able to produce.’ . . . “And the poet has forestalled the philosopher. Milton (‘Paradise Lost,’ Book V.) makes the Archangel Raphael say to Adam, instinct with the evolutionary idea, that the Almighty had created
Nevertheless, the idea would have remained crystallized “in the air of Science,” and never have descended into the thick atmosphere of materialism and profane mortals for years to come, perhaps, had not Professor Crookes bravely and fearlessly reduced it to its simple elements, and thus publicly forced it on Scientific notice. “An idea,” says Plutarch, “is a being incorporeal, which has no subsistence by itself, but gives figure and form unto shapeless matter, and becomes the cause of the manifestation.” (De Placit. Philos.) The revolution produced in old chemistry by Avogadro was the first page in the Volume of New Chemistry. Mr. Crookes has now turned the second page, and is boldly pointing to what may be the last. For once protyle accepted and recognized — as invisible Ether was, both being logical and scientific necessities — Chemistry will have virtually ceased to live: it will reappear in its reincarnation as New Alchemy, or Metachemistry. The discoverer of radiant matter will have vindicated in time the Archaic Aryan works on Occultism and even the Vedas and Puranas. For what are the manifested “Mother,” the “Father-Son-Husband” (Aditi and Daksha, a form of Brahma, as Creators) and the “Son,” — the three “First-born” — but simply Hydrogen, Oxygen, and that which in its terrestrial manifestation is called nitrogen. Even the exoteric descriptions of the “First Born” triad give all the characteristics of these three gases. Priestley, the “discoverer” of Oxygen, or that which was known in the highest antiquity!
Yet all the ancient, mediaeval, and modern poets and philosophers have been anticipated even in the exoteric Hindu books. Descartes’ plenum of matter differentiated into particles; Leibnitz’s Ethereal Fluid and Kant’s “primitive fluid” dissolved into its elements; Kepler’s Solar Vortex and Systemic Vortices; in short, from the Elemental Vortices inaugurated by the universal mind — through Anaxagoras, down to Galileo, Torricelli, and Swedenborg, and after them to the latest speculations by European mystics — all this is found in the Hindu hymns and Mantras to the “Gods, Monads, and Atoms,” in their fulness, for they are inseparable. In esoteric teachings, the most transcendental conceptions of the universe and its mysteries, as the most (seemingly) materialistic speculations are found reconciled, because those sciences embrace the whole scope of evolution from Spirit to matter. As declared by an American Theosophist, “The Monads (of Leibnitz) may from one point of view be called force, from another matter. To occult Science, force and matter are only two sides of the same substance.” (“Path,” No. 10, p. 297.)
Let the reader remember these “Monads” of Leibnitz, every one of which is a living mirror of the universe, every monad reflecting every other, and compare this view and definition with certain Sanskrit stanzas (Slokas) translated by Sir William Jones, in which it is said that the creative source of the Divine Mind, . . . “Hidden in a veil of thick darkness, formed mirrors of the atoms of the world, and cast reflection from its own face on every atom. . . . .”
When, therefore, Professor Crookes declares that “If we can show how the so-called chemical elements might have been generated we shall be able to fill up a formidable gap in our knowledge of the universe, . . .” the answer is ready. The theoretical knowledge is contained in the esoteric meaning of every Hindu cosmogony in the Puranas; the practical demonstration thereof — is in the hands of those who will not be recognised in this century, save by the very few. The scientific possibilities of various discoveries, that must inexorably lead exact Science into the acceptation of Eastern Occult views, which contain all the requisite material for the filling of those “gaps,” are, so far, at the mercy of modern materialism. It is only by working in the direction taken by Professor Crookes that there is any hope for the recognition of a few, hitherto Occult, truths.
Meanwhile, one thirsting to have a glimpse at a practical diagram of the evolution of primordial matter, which, separating and differentiating under the impulse of cyclic law, divides itself into a septenary gradation of Substance (from a general view), can do no better than examine the plates attached to Mr. Crookes’ lecture: “Genesis of the Elements,” and ponder well over some passages of the text. In one place (p. 11) he says: —
“. . . . Our notions of a chemical element have expanded. Hitherto the molecule has been regarded as an aggregate of two or more atoms, and no account has been taken of the architectural design on which these atoms have been joined. We may consider that the structure of a chemical element is more complicated than has hitherto been supposed. Between the molecules we are accustomed to deal with in chemical reactions and ultimate atoms as first created, come smaller molecules or aggregates of physical atoms; then sub-molecules differ one from the other, according to the position they occupied in the yttrium edifice.”
“Perhaps this hypothesis can be simplified if we imagine yttrium to be represented by a five-shilling piece. By chemical fractionation I have divided it into five separate shillings, and find that these shillings are not counterparts, but like the carbon atoms in the benzol ring, have the impress of their position, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, stamped on them. . . . If I throw my shillings into the melting-pot or dissolve them chemically, the mint stamp disappears and they all turn out to be silver.” . . .
This will be the case with all the atoms and molecules when they have separated from their compound forms and bodies — when pralaya sets in. Reverse the case, and imagine the dawn of a new manvantara. The pure “silver” of the absorbed material will once more separate into substance, which will generate “Divine Essences” whose “principles”  are the primary elements, the sub-elements, the physical energies and subjective and objective matter; or, as these are epitomised — gods, monads, and atoms. If leaving for one moment the metaphysical or transcendental side of the question, — dropping out of the present consideration the supersensuous and intelligent beings and entities believed in by the Kabalists and Christians — we turn to the atomical theory of evolution, the occult teachings are still found corroborated by exact Science and its confessions, as far, at least, as regards the supposed “simple” elements, now suddenly degraded into poor and distant relatives — not even second cousins to the latter. For we are told by Prof. Crookes that:
“Hitherto, it has been considered that if the atomic weight of a metal, determined by different observers, setting out from different compounds, was always found to be constant . . . then such metal must rightly take rank among the simple or elementary bodies. We learn . . . that this is no longer the case. Again, we have here wheels within wheels. Gadolinium is not an element but a compound. . . We have shown that yttrium is a complex of five or more new constituents. And who shall venture to gainsay that each of these constituents, if attacked in some different manner, and if the result were submitted to a test more delicate and searching than the radiant-matter test, might not be still further divisible? Where, then, is the actual ultimate element? As we advance it recedes like the tantalizing mirage lakes and groves seen by the tired and thirsty traveller in the desert. Are we in our quest for truth to be thus deluded and baulked? The very idea of an element, as something absolutely primary and ultimate, seems to be growing less and less distinct. . .” (p. 16).
On page 429 of Isis Unveiled, Vol. I., we said that “the mystery of first creation, which was ever the despair of Science, is unfathomable unless they (the Scientists) accept the doctrine of Hermes. They will have to follow in the footsteps of the Hermetists.” Our prophecy begins to assert itself.
But between Hermes and Huxley there is a middle course and point. Let the men of Science only throw a bridge half-way, and think seriously over the theories of Leibnitz. We have shown our theories with regard to atomic evolution — their last formation into compound chemical molecules being produced within our terrestrial workshops in the earth’s atmosphere and not elsewhere — as strangely agreeing with the evolution of atoms shown on Mr. Crookes’ plates. Several times already it was stated in this volume that Marttanda (the Sun) had evolved and aggregated, together with his smaller seven Brothers, from his Mother’s (Aditi’s) bosom, that bosom being prima mater-ia — the lecturer’s primordial protyle. Esoteric doctrines teach the existence of “an antecedent form of energy having periodic cycles of ebb and swell, rest and activity” (p. 21) — and behold a great scholar in Science now asking the world to accept this as one of the postulates. We have shown the “Mother,” fiery and hot, becoming gradually cool and radiant, and that same Scientist claims as his second postulate, a scientific necessity, it would seem — “an internal action akin to cooling, operating slowly in the protyle.” Occult Science teaches that “Mother” lies stretched in infinity (during Pralaya) as the great Deep, the “dry Waters of Space,” according to the quaint expression in the Catechism, and becomes wet only after the separation and the moving over its face of Narayana, the “Spirit which is invisible Flame, which never burns, but sets on fire all that it touches, and gives it life and generation.”  And now Science tells us that “the first-born element . . . most nearly allied to protyle” . . . would be “hydrogen . . . which for some time would be the only existing form of matter” in the Universe. What says Old Science? It answers: just so; but we would call hydrogen and oxygen (which instils the fire of life into the “Mother” by incubation) in the pregenetic and even pre-geological ages — the Spirit, the noumenon of that which becomes in its grossest form oxygen and hydrogen and nitrogen on Earth — nitrogen being of no divine origin, but merely an earth-born cement to unite other gases and fluids, and serve as a sponge to carry in itself the breath of life — pure air.  Before these gases and fluids become what they are in our atmosphere, they are interstellar Ether; still earlier and on a deeper plane — something else, and so on in infinitum. The eminent and learned gentleman must pardon an Occultist for quoting him at such length; but such is the penalty of a Fellow of the Royal Society who approaches so near the precincts of the Sacred Adytum of Occult mysteries as virtually to overstep the forbidden boundaries.
But it is time to leave modern physical science and turn to the psychological and metaphysical side of the question. We would only remark that to the “two very reasonable postulates” required by the eminent lecturer, “to get a glimpse of some few of the secrets so darkly hidden” behind “the door of the Unknown” — a third should be added  — lest no battering at it should avail; the postulate that Leibnitz, in his speculations, stood on a firm groundwork of fact and truth. The admirable and thoughtful synopsis of these speculations — as given by John Theodore Merz in his “Leibnitz” — shows how nearly he has brushed the hidden secrets of esoteric Theogony in his Monadologie. And yet that philosopher has hardly risen in his speculations above the first planes, the lower principles of the Cosmic Great Body. His theory soars to no loftier heights than those of the manifested life, self-consciousness and intelligence, leaving the regions of the earlier post-genetic mysteries untouched, as his ethereal fluid is post-planetary.
But this third postulate will hardly be accepted by the modern men of Science; and, like Descartes, they will prefer keeping to the properties of external things, which, like extension, are incapable of explaining the phenomenon of motion, rather than accept the latter as an independent Force. They will never become anti-Cartesian in this generation; nor will they admit that “this property of inertia is not a purely geometrical property, that it points to the existence of something in external bodies which is not extension merely.” This is Leibnitz’s idea as analyzed by Mertz, who adds that he called this something Force, and maintained that external things were endowed with Force, and that in order to be the bearers of this force they must have a substance, for they are not lifeless and inert masses, but the centres and bearers of form, a purely esoteric claim, since force was with Leibnitz an active principle, the division between mind and matter disappearing by this conclusion. But —
“The mathematical and dynamical inquiries of Leibnitz would not have led to the same result in the mind of a purely scientific inquirer. But Leibnitz was not a scientific man in the modern sense of the word. Had he been so, he might have worked out the conception of energy, defined mathematically the ideas of force and mechanical work, and arrived at the conclusion that even for purely scientific purposes it is desirable to look upon force, not as a primary quantity, but as a quantity derived from some other value.”
But, luckily for truth —
“Leibnitz was a philosopher; and as such he had certain primary principles, which biassed him in favour of certain conclusions, and his discovery that external things were substances endowed with force was at once used for the purpose of applying these principles. One of these principles was the law of continuity, the conviction that all the world was connected, that there were no gaps and chasms which could not be bridged over. The contrast of extended thinking substances was unbearable to him. The definition of the extended substances had already become untenable: it was natural that a similar inquiry was made into the definition of mind, the thinking substance. . .”
The divisions made by Leibnitz, however incomplete and faulty from the standpoint of Occultism, show a spirit of metaphysical intuition to which no man of science, not Descartes — not even Kant — has ever reached. With him there existed ever an infinite gradation of thought. Only a small portion of the contents of our thoughts, he said, rises into the clearness of apperception, “into the light of perfect consciousness.” Many remain in a confused or obscure state, in the state of “perceptions;” but they are there; . . . Descartes denied soul to the animal, Leibnitz endowed, as the Occultists do, “the whole creation with mental life, this being, according to him, capable of infinite gradations.” And this, as Mertz justly observes, “at once widened the realm of mental life, destroying the contrast of animate and inanimate matter; it did yet more — it reacted on the conception of matter, of the extended substance. For it became evident that external or material things presented the property of extension to our senses only, not to our thinking faculties. The mathematician, in order to calculate geometrical figures, had been obliged to divide them into an infinite number of infinitely small parts, and the physicist saw no limit to the divisibility of matter into atoms. The bulk through which external things seemed to fill space was a property which they acquired only through the coarseness of our senses. . . . Leibnitz followed these arguments to some extent, but he could not rest content in assuming that matter was composed of a finite number of very small parts. His mathematical mind forced him to carry out the argument in infinitum. And what became of the atoms then? They lost their extension and they retained only their property of resistance; they were the centres of force. They were reduced to mathematical points . . . but if their extension in space was nothing, so much fuller was their inner life. Assuming that inner existence, such as that of the human mind, is a new dimension, not a geometrical but a metaphysical dimension . . . having reduced the geometrical extension of the atoms to nothing, Leibnitz endowed them with an infinite extension in the direction of their metaphysical dimension. After having lost sight of them in the world of space, the mind has, as it were, to dive into a metaphysical world to find and grasp the real essence of what appears in space merely as a mathematical point. . . . As a cone stands on its point, or a perpendicular straight line cuts a horizontal plane only in one mathematical point, but may extend infinitely in height and depth, so the essences of things real have only a punctual existence in this physical world of space; but have an infinite depth of inner life in the metaphysical world of thought . . . ” (p. 144).
This is the spirit, the very root of occult doctrine and thought. The “Spirit-Matter” and “Matter-Spirit” extend infinitely in depth, and like “the essence of things” of Leibnitz, our essence of things real is at the seventh depth; while the unreal and gross matter of Science and the external world, is at the lowest end of our perceptive senses. The Occultist knows the worth or worthlessness of the latter.
The student must now be shown the fundamental distinction between the system of Leibnitz  and that of occult philosophy, on the question of the Monads, and this may be done with his Monadology before us. It may be correctly stated that were Leibnitz’ and Spinoza’s systems reconciled, the essence and Spirit of esoteric philosophy would be made to appear. From the shock of the two — as opposed to the Cartesian system — emerge the truths of the Archaic doctrine. Both opposed the metaphysics of Descartes. His idea of the contrast of two substances — Extension and Thought — radically differing from each other and mutually irreducible, was too arbitrary and too unphilosophical for them. Thus Leibnitz made of the two Cartesian substances two attributes of one universal unity, in which he saw God. Spinoza recognised but one universal indivisible substance and absolute all, like Parabrahmam. Leibnitz, on the contrary perceived the existence of a plurality of substances. There was but one for Spinoza; for Leibnitz an infinitude of Beings, from, and in, the One. Hence, though both admitted but one real Entity, while Spinoza made it impersonal and indivisible, Leibnitz divided his personal Deity into a number of divine and semi-divine Beings. Spinoza was a subjective, Leibnitz an objective Pantheist, yet both were great philosophers in their intuitive perceptions.
Now, if these two teachings were blended together and each corrected by the other, — and foremost of all the One Reality weeded of its personality — there would remain as sum total a true spirit of esoteric philosophy in them; the impersonal, attributeless, absolute divine essence which is no “Being,” but the root of all being. Draw a deep line in your thought between that ever-incognizable essence, and the, as invisible, yet comprehensible Presence (Mulaprakriti), or Schekinah, from beyond and through which vibrates the Sound of the Verbum, and from which evolve the numberless hierarchies of intelligent Egos, of conscious as of semi-conscious, perceptive and apperceptive Beings, whose essence is spiritual Force, whose Substance is the Elements and whose Bodies (when needed) are the atoms — and our doctrine is there. For, says Leibnitz, “the primitive Element of every material body being Force, which has none of the characteristics of (objective) matter — it can be conceived but can never be the object of any imaginative representation.” That which was for him the primordial and ultimate element in every body and object was thus not the material atoms, or molecules, necessarily more or less extended, as those of Epicurus and Gassendi, but, as Mertz shows, immaterial and metaphysical atoms, ‘mathematical points’; or real souls, — as explained by Henri Lachelier (Professeur agrege de Philosophie), his French biographer. “That which exists outside of us in an absolute manner, are Souls whose essence is force,” (Monadologie, Introd.).
Thus, reality in the manifested world is composed of a unity of units, so to say, immaterial (from our stand-point) and infinite. This Leibnitz calls “Monads,” Eastern philosophy “Jivas” —and Occultism gives it, with the Kabalists and all the Christians, a variety of names. They are with us, as with Leibnitz — “the expression of the universe,”  and every physical point is but the phenomenal expression of the noumenal, metaphysical point. His distinction between perception and apperception, is the philosophical though dim expression of the Esoteric teachings. His “reduced universes,” of which “there are as many as there are Monads” — is the chaotic representation of our Septenary System with its divisions and sub-divisions.
As to the relation his Monads bear to our Dhyan-Chohans, Cosmic Spirits, Devas and Elementals, we may reproduce briefly the opinion of a learned and thoughtful theosophist, Mr. H. A. Bjerregaard, on the subject. In an excellent paper “On the Elementals, the Elementary Spirits, and the relationship between them and Human Beings,” read by him before the “Aryan Theosophical Society of New York” (see Path, Nos. 10 and 11, of Jan. and Feb. 1887), Mr. Bjerregaard formulates distinctly his opinion. . . . . “To Spinoza, substance is dead and inactive, but to Leibnitz’s penetrating mind everything is living activity and active energy. In holding this view, he comes infinitely nearer the Orient than any other thinker of his day, or after him. His discovery that an active energy forms the essence of Substance is a principle that places him in direct relationship to the Seers of the East.”
And the lecturer proceeds to show that to Leibnitz atoms and elements are centres of force, or rather “spiritual beings whose very nature is to act,” for the elementary particles are not acting mechanically, but from an internal principle. They are incorporeal spiritual units (“substantial,” however, but not immaterial in our sense) inaccessible to all changes from without, and indestructible by any external force. Leibnitz’s monads, adds the lecturer, “differ from atoms in the following particulars, which are very important for us to remember, otherwise we shall not be able to see the difference between elementals and mere matter.” . . . . “Atoms are not distinguished from each other, they are qualitatively alike; but one monad differs from every other monad qualitatively; and every one is a peculiar world to itself. Not so with atoms; they are absolutely alike quantitatively and qualitatively, and possess no individuality of their own.  Again, the atoms (molecules, rather) of materialistic philosophy can be considered as extended and divisible, while the monads are mere mathematical points and indivisible. Finally, and this is a point where these monads of Leibnitz closely resemble the elementals of mystic philosophy — these monads are representative Beings. Every monad reflects every other. Every monad is a living mirror of the Universe within its own sphere. And mark this, for upon it depends the power possessed by these monads, and upon this depends the work they can do for us; in mirroring the world, the monads are not mere passive reflective agents, but spontaneously self-active; they produce the images spontaneously, as the soul does a dream. In every monad, therefore, the adept may read everything, even the future. Every monad or Elemental is a looking-glass that can speak. . .”
It is at this point that Leibnitz’s philosophy breaks down. There is no provision made, nor any distinction established, between the “Elemental” monad and that of a high Planetary Spirit, or even the human monad or Soul. He even goes so far as to sometimes doubt whether “God has ever made anything but Monads or substances without extension.” (Examen des Principes du P. Malebranche.) He draws a distinction between Monads and Atoms,  because, as he repeatedly states, “bodies with all their qualities are only phenomenal, like the rainbow. . . . Corpora omnia cum omnibus qualitatibus suis non sunt aliud quam phenomena bene fundata, ut Iris” (Letter to Father Desbosses, Correspondence, letter xviii.) — but soon after he finds a provision for this in a substantial correspondence, a certain metaphysical bond between the monads — vinculum substantiale. Esoteric philosophy, teaching an objective Idealism — though it regards the objective Universe and all in it as Maya, temporary illusion — draws a practical distinction between collective illusion, Mahamaya, from the purely metaphysical stand-point, and the objective relations in it between various conscious Egos so long as this illusion lasts. The adept, therefore, may read the future in an Elemental Monad, but he has to draw for this object a great number of them, as each monad represents only a portion of the Kingdom it belongs to. “It is not in the object, but in the modification of the cognition of the object that the Monads are limited. They all go confusedly to the infinite, to the all, but they are all limited and distinguished by the degrees of distinct perceptions.” (§ 60, Monadologie.)  And as Leibnitz explains, “All the portions of the Universe are distinctly represented in the Monads, but some are reflected in one monad, some in another;” but a number of monads could represent simultaneously the thoughts of the two millions of inhabitants of Paris.
But what say the Occult Sciences to this, and what do they add?
They say that what is called collectively Monads by Leibnitz — roughly viewed, and leaving every subdivision out of calculation, for the present  — may be separated into three distinct Hosts, which, counted from the highest planes, are, firstly, “gods,” or conscious, spiritual Egos; the intelligent architects, who work after the plan in the Divine Mind. Then come the Elementals, or Monads, who form collectively and unconsciously the grand Universal Mirrors of everything connected with their respective realms. Lastly, the atoms, or material molecules, which are informed in their turn by their apperceptive monads, just as every cell in a human body is so informed. (See the closing pages of Book I.) There are shoals of such informed atoms which, in their turn, inform the molecules; an infinitude of monads, or Elementals proper, and countless spiritual Forces — Monadless, for they are pure incorporealities,  except under certain laws, when they assume a form — not necessarily human. Whence the substance that clothes them — the apparent organism they evolve around their centres? The Formless (“Arupa”) Radiations, existing in the harmony of Universal Will, and being what we term the collective or the aggregate of Cosmic Will on the plane of the subjective Universe, unite together an infinitude of monads — each the mirror of its own Universe — and thus individualize for the time being an independent mind, omniscient and universal; and by the same process of magnetic aggregation they create for themselves objective, visible bodies, out of the interstellar atoms. For atoms and Monads, associated or dissociated, simple or complex, are, from the moment of the first differentiation, but the principles, corporeal, psychic and Spiritual, of the “Gods,” — themselves the Radiations of primordial nature. Thus, to the eye of the Seer, the higher Planetary Powers appear under two aspects: the subjective — as influences, and the objective — as mystic forms, which, under Karmic law, become a Presence, Spirit and Matter being One, as repeatedly stated. Spirit is matter on the seventh plane; matter is Spirit — on the lowest point of its cyclic activity; and both — are Maya.
Atoms are called “Vibrations” in Occultism; also “Sound” — collectively. This does not interfere with Mr. Tyndall’s scientific discovery. He traced, on the lower rung of the ladder of monadic being, the whole course of the atmospheric vibrations —and this constitutes the objective part of the process in nature. He has traced and recorded the rapidity of their motion and transmission; the force of their impact; their setting up vibrations in the tympanum and their transmission of these to the stolithes, etc., etc., till the vibration of the auditory nerve commences — and a new phenomenon now takes place: the subjective side of the process or the sensation of Sound. Does he perceive or see it? No; for his speciality is to discover the behaviour of matter. But why should not a psychic see it, a spiritual seer, whose inner Eye is opened, and who can see through the veil of matter? The waves and undulations of Science are all produced by atoms propelling their molecules into activity from within. Atoms fill the immensity of Space, and by their continuous vibration are that motion which keeps the wheels of Life perpetually going. It is that inner work that produces the natural phenomena called the correlation of Forces. Only, at the origin of every such “force,” there stands the conscious guiding noumenon thereof — Angel or God, Spirit or Demon — ruling powers, yet the same.
As described by Seers — those who can see the motion of the interstellar shoals, and follow them in their evolution clairvoyantly — they are dazzling, like specks of virgin snow in radiant sunlight. Their velocity is swifter than thought, quicker than any mortal physical eye could follow, and, as well as can be judged from the tremendous rapidity of their course, the motion is circular. . . . . Standing on an open plain, on a mountain summit especially, and gazing into the vast vault above and the spacial infinitudes around, the whole atmosphere seems ablaze with them, the air soaked through with these dazzling coruscations. At times, the intensity of their motion produces flashes like the Northern lights during the Aurora Borealis. The sight is so marvellous, that, as the Seer gazes into this inner world, and feels the scintillating points shoot past him, he is filled with awe at the thought of other, still greater mysteries, that lie beyond, and within, this radiant ocean. . . . .
However imperfect and incomplete this explanation on “Gods, Monads and Atoms,” it is hoped that some students and theosophists, at least, will feel that there may be indeed a close relation between materialistic Science, and Occultism, which is the complement and missing soul of the former.
It is the Spiritual evolution of the inner, immortal man that forms the fundamental tenet in the Occult Sciences. To realize even distantly such a process, the student has to believe (a) in the one Universal Life, independent of matter (or what Science regards as matter); and (b) in the individual intelligences that animate the various manifestations of this Principle. Mr. Huxley does not believe in “Vital Force,” others do. Dr. J. H. Hutchinson Sterling’s work “Concerning Protoplasm” has made no small havoc of this dogmatic negation. Professor Beale’s decision is also in favour of a Vital Principle; and Dr. B. W. Richardson’s lectures on the “Nervous Ether,” have been sufficiently quoted from. Thus, opinions are divided.
The one life is closely related to the one law which governs the World of Being — Karma. Exoterically, this is simply and literally “action,” or rather an “effect-producing cause.” Esoterically it is quite a different thing in its far-fetching moral effects. It is the unerring Law of Retribution. To say to those ignorant of the real significance, characteristics and awful importance of this eternal immutable law, that no theological definition of a personal deity can give an idea of this impersonal, yet ever present and active Principle, is to speak in vain. Nor can it be called Providence. For Providence, with the Theists (the Christian Protestants, at any rate), rejoices in a personal male gender, while with the Roman Catholics it is a female potency, “Divine Providence tempers His blessings to secure their better effects,” Wogan tells us. Indeed “He” tempers them, which Karma — a sexless principle — does not.
Throughout the first two Parts, it was shown that, at the first flutter of renascent life, Svabhavat, “the mutable radiance of the Immutable Darkness unconscious in Eternity,” passes, at every new rebirth of Kosmos, from an inactive state into one of intense activity; that it differentiates, and then begins its work through that differentiation. This work is Karma.
The Cycles are also subservient to the effects produced by this activity. “The one Cosmic atom becomes seven atoms on the plane of matter, and each is transformed into a centre of energy; that same atom becomes seven rays on the plane of spirit, and the seven creative forces of nature, radiating from the root-essence . . . . follow, one the right, the other the left path, separate till the end of the Kalpa, and yet are in close embrace. What unites them? Karma.” The atoms emanated from the Central Point emanate in their turn new centres of energy, which, under the potential breath of Fohat, begin their work from within without, and multiply other minor centres. These, in the course of evolution and involution, form in their turn the roots or developing causes of new effects, from worlds and “man-bearing” globes, down to the genera, species, and classes of all the seven kingdoms  (of which we know only four). For “the blessed workers have received the Thyan-kam, in the eternity” (Book of “The Aphorisms of Tson-ka-pa”).
“Thyan-kam” is the power or knowledge of guiding the impulses of cosmic energy in the right direction.
The true Buddhist, recognising no “personal god,” nor any “Father” and “Creator of Heaven and Earth,” still believes in an absolute consciousness, “Adi-Buddhi”; and the Buddhist philosopher knows that there are Planetary Spirits, the “Dhyan Chohans.” But though he admits of “spiritual lives,” yet, as they are temporary in eternity, even they, according to his philosophy, are “the maya of the day,” the illusion of a “day of Brahma,” a short manvantara of 4,320,000,000 years. The “Yin-Sin” is not for the speculations of men, for the Lord Buddha has strongly prohibited all such inquiry. If the Dhyan Chohans and all the invisible Beings — the Seven Centres and their direct Emanations, the minor centres of Energy — are the direct reflex of the One Light, yet men are far removed from these, since the whole of the visible Kosmos consists of “self-produced beings, the creatures of Karma.” Thus regarding a personal God “as only a gigantic shadow thrown upon the void of space by the imagination of ignorant men,”  they teach that only “two things are (objectively) eternal, namely Akasa and Nirvana”; and that these are onE in reality, and but a maya when divided. “Buddhists deny creation and cannot conceive of a Creator.” “Everything has come out of Akasa (or Svabhavat on our earth) in obedience to a law of motion inherent in it, and after a certain existence passes away. Nothing ever came out of nothing.” (Buddhist Catechism.)
If a Vedantic Brahmin of the Adwaita Sect, when asked whether he believes in the existence of God, is always likely to answer, as Jacolliot was answered — “I am myself ‘God’;” a Buddhist (a Sinhalese especially) would simply laugh, and say in reply, “There is no God; no Creation.” Yet the root philosophy of both Adwaita and Buddhist scholars is identical, and both have the same respect for animal life, for both believe that every creature on earth, however small and humble, “is an immortal portion of the immortal matter” — for matter with them has quite another significance than it has with either Christian or materialist — and that every creature is subject to Karma.
The answer of the Brahmin is one which would suggest itself to every ancient philosopher, Kabalist, and Gnostic of the early days. It contains the very spirit of the Delphic and Kabalistic commandments, for esoteric philosophy solved, ages ago, the problem of what man was, is, and will be; of man’s origin, life-cycle — interminable in its duration of successive incarnations or rebirths — and finally of his absorption into the source from which he started.
But it is not physical Science that we can ever ask to read man for us, as the riddle of the Past, or that of the Future; since no philosopher is able to tell us even what man is, as he is known both to physiology and psychology. In doubt whether man was “a god or beast,” he is now connected with the latter and derived from an animal. No doubt that the care of analyzing and classifying the human being as a terrestrial animal may be left to Science, which occultists — of all men — regard with veneration and respect. They recognize its ground and the wonderful work done by it, the progress achieved in physiology, and even — to a degree — in biology. But man’s inner, spiritual, psychic, or even moral, nature cannot be left to the tender mercies of an ingrained materialism; for not even the higher psychological philosophy of the West is able, in its present incompleteness and tendency towards a decided agnosticism, to do justice to the inner; especially to his higher capacities and perceptions, and those states of consciousness, across the road to which such authorities as Mill draw a strong line, saying “So far, and no farther shalt thou go.”
No Occultist would deny that man — no less than the elephant and the microbe, the crocodile and the lizard, the blade of grass or the crystal — is, in his physical formation, the simple product of the evolutionary forces of nature through a numberless series of transformations; but he puts the case differently.
It is not against zoological and anthropological discoveries, based on the fossils of man and animal, that every mystic and believer in a divine soul inwardly revolts, but only against the uncalled-for conclusions built on preconceived theories and made to fit in with certain prejudices. Their premises may or may not be always true; and as some of these theories live but a short life, the deductions therefrom must ever be one-sided with materialistic evolutionists. Yet it is on the strength of such very ephemeral authority, that most of the men of science frequently receive undue honours where they deserve them the least. 
To make the working of Karma, in the periodical renovations of the Universe, more evident and intelligible to the student when he arrives at the origin and evolution of man, he has now to examine with us the esoteric bearing of the Karmic Cycles upon Universal Ethics. The question is, do those mysterious divisions of time, called Yugas and Kalpas by the Hindus, and so very graphically — [[Kuklos]] — “cycle,” ring or circle, by the Greeks, have any bearing upon, or any direct connection with, human life? Even exoteric philosophy explains that these perpetual circles of time are ever returning on themselves, periodically, and intelligently in Space and Eternity. There are “Cycles of matter”  and there are “Cycles of Spiritual evolution.” Racial, national, and individual cycles. May not esoteric speculation allow us a still deeper insight into the workings of these?
This idea is beautifully expressed in a very clever scientific work: —
According to the teachings, Maya, or the illusive appearance of the marshalling of events and actions on this earth, changes, varying with nations and places. But the chief features of one’s life are always in accordance with the “Constellation” one is born under, or, we should say, with the characteristics of its animating principle or the deity that presides over it, whether we call it a Dhyan Chohan, as in Asia, or an Archangel, as with the Greek and Latin churches. In ancient Symbolism it was always the Sun (though the Spiritual, not the visible, Sun was meant), that was supposed to send forth the chief Saviours and Avatars. Hence the connecting link between the Buddhas, the Avatars, and so many other incarnations of the highest Seven. The closer the approach to one’s Prototype, “in Heaven,” the better for the mortal whose personality was chosen, by his own personal deity (the seventh principle), as its terrestrial abode. For, with every effort of will toward purification and unity with that “Self-god,” one of the lower rays breaks and the spiritual entity of man is drawn higher and ever higher to the ray that supersedes the first, until, from ray to ray, the inner man is drawn into the one and highest beam of the Parent-Sun. Thus, “the events of humanity do run coordinately with the number forms,” since the single units of that humanity proceed one and all from the same source — the central and its shadow, the visible Sun. For the equinoxes and solstices, the periods and various phases of the Solar course, astronomically and numerically expressed, are only the concrete symbols of the eternally living verity, though they do seem abstract ideas to uninitiated mortals. And this explains the extraordinary numerical coincidences with geometrical relations, as shown by several authors.
Yes; “our destiny is written in the stars!” Only, the closer the union between the mortal reflection man and his celestial prototype, the less dangerous the external conditions and subsequent reincarnations — which neither Buddhas nor Christs can escape. This is not superstition, least of all is it Fatalism. The latter implies a blind course of some still blinder power, and man is a free agent during his stay on earth. He cannot escape his ruling Destiny, but he has the choice of two paths that lead him in that direction, and he can reach the goal of misery — if such is decreed to him, either in the snowy white robes of the Martyr, or in the soiled garments of a volunteer in the iniquitous course; for, there are external and internal conditions which affect the determination of our will upon our actions, and it is in our power to follow either of the two. Those who believe in Karma have to believe in destiny, which, from birth to death, every man is weaving thread by thread around himself, as a spider does his cobweb; and this destiny is guided either by the heavenly voice of the invisible prototype outside of us, or by our more intimate astral, or inner man, who is but too often the evil genius of the embodied entity called man. Both these lead on the outward man, but one of them must prevail; and from the very beginning of the invisible affray the stern and implacable law of compensation steps in and takes its course, faithfully following the fluctuations. When the last strand is woven, and man is seemingly enwrapped in the net-work of his own doing, then he finds himself completely under the empire of this self-made destiny. It then either fixes him like the inert shell against the immovable rock, or carries him away like a feather in a whirlwind raised by his own actions, and this is — Karma.
A materialist, treating upon the periodical creations of our globe, has expressed it in one sentence. “The whole past of the Earth is nothing but an unfolded present.” This was Buchner, who little suspected that he was repeating an axiom of the Occultists. It is quite true also, as Burmeister (quoted in “Force and matter”) remarks, that “the historical investigation of the development of the Earth has proved that now and then rest upon the same base; that the past has been developed in the same manner as the present rolls on; and that the Forces which were in action ever remained the same.”
The “Forces” — their noumena rather — are the same, of course; therefore, the phenomenal Forces must be the same also. But how can any one feel so sure that the attributes of matter have not altered under the hand of Protean Evolution? How can any materialist assert with such confidence, as is done by Rossmassler, that “this eternal conformity in the essence of phenomena renders it certain that fire and water possessed at all times the same powers and ever will possess them?” Who are they “that darken counsel with words without knowledge,” and where were the Huxleys and Buchners when the foundations of the earth were laid by the great Law? It is a fundamental principle of the Occult philosophy, this same homogeneity of matter and immutability of natural laws, which are so much insisted upon by materialism; but that unity rests upon the inseparability of Spirit from matter, and, if the two are once divorced, the whole Kosmos would fall back into chaos and non-being. Therefore, it is absolutely false, and but an additional demonstration of the great conceit of our age, to assert (as men of science do) that all the great geological changes and terrible convulsions have been produced by ordinary and known physical forces. For these forces were but the tools and final means for the accomplishment of certain purposes, acting periodically, and apparently mechanically, through an inward impulse mixed up with, but beyond their material nature. There is a purpose in every important act of Nature, whose acts are all cyclic and periodical. But spiritual Forces having been usually confused with the purely physical, the former are denied by, and therefore, have to remain unknown to Science, because left unexamined. 
No metaphysician or theosophist could demur to these truths, which are all embodied in esoteric teachings. There is a predestination in the geological life of our globe, as in the history, past and future, of races and nations. This is closely connected with what we call Karma and Western Pantheists, “Nemesis” and “Cycles.” The law of evolution is now carrying us along the ascending arc of our cycle, when the effects will be once more re-merged into, and re-become the (now neutralized) causes, and all things affected by the former will have regained their original harmony. This will be the cycle of our special “Round,” a moment in the duration of the great cycle, or the Mahayuga.
The fine philosophical remarks of Hegel are found to have their application in the teachings of Occult Science, which shows nature ever acting with a given purpose, whose results are always dual. This was stated in our first Occult volumes, in Isis Unveiled, p. 268, Vol. II., in the following words: —
But these cycles — wheels within wheels, so comprehensively and ingeniously symbolized by the various Manus and Rishis in India, and by the Kabiri in the West  — do not affect all mankind at one and the same time — as explained in the Racial division of Cycles (See sub-section 6.) Hence, as we see, the difficulty of comprehending, and discriminating between them, with regard to their physical and spiritual effects, without having thoroughly mastered their relations with, and action upon the respective positions of nations and races, in their destiny and evolution. This system cannot be comprehended if the spiritual action of these periods — pre-ordained, so to say, by Karmic law —is separated from their physical course. The calculations of the best astrologers would fail, or at any rate remain imperfect, unless this dual action is thoroughly taken into consideration and dealt with upon these lines. And this mastery can be achieved only through initiation.
The Grand Cycle includes the progress of mankind from the appearance of primordial man of ethereal form. It runs through the inner cycles of his (man’s) progressive evolution from the ethereal down to the semi-ethereal and purely physical: down to the redemption of man from his coat of skin and matter, after which it continues running its course downward and then upward again, to meet at the culmination of a Round, when the manvantaric “Serpent swallows its tail” and seven minor cycles are passed. These are the great Racial Cycles which affect equally all the nations and tribes included in that special Race; but there are minor and national as well as tribal cycles within those, which run independently of each other. They are called in the Eastern esotericism the Karmic cycles. In the West, since Pagan Wisdom has been repudiated as having grown from and been developed by the dark powers supposed to be at constant war and in opposition to the little tribal Jehovah — the full and awful significance of the Greek Nemesis (or Karma) has been entirely forgotten. Otherwise Christians would have better realized the profound truth that Nemesis is without attributes; that while the dreaded goddess is absolute and immutable as a Principle, it is we ourselves — nations and individuals — who propel her to action and give the impulse to its direction. Karma-Nemesis is the creator of nations and mortals, but once created, it is they who make of her either a fury or a rewarding Angel. Yea —
— as the chorus tells Prometheus. And as unwise they, who believe that the goddess may be propitiated by whatever sacrifices and prayers, or have her wheel diverted from the path it has once taken. “The triform Fates and ever mindful Furies” are her attributes only on earth, and begotten by ourselves. There is no return from the paths she cycles over; yet those paths are of our own making, for it is we, collectively or individually, who prepare them. Karma-Nemesis is the synonym of Providence, minus design, goodness, and every other finite attribute and qualification, so unphilosophically attributed to the latter. An Occultist or a philosopher will not speak of the goodness or cruelty of Providence; but, identifying it with Karma-Nemesis, he will teach that nevertheless it guards the good and watches over them in this, as in future lives; and that it punishes the evil-doer — aye, even to his seventh rebirth. So long, in short, as the effect of his having thrown into perturbation even the smallest atom in the Infinite World of harmony, has not been finally readjusted. For the only decree of Karma — an eternal and immutable decree — is absolute Harmony in the world of matter as it is in the world of Spirit. It is not, therefore, Karma that rewards or punishes, but it is we, who reward or punish ourselves according to whether we work with, through and along with nature, abiding by the laws on which that Harmony depends, or — break them.
Nor would the ways of Karma be inscrutable were men to work in union and harmony, instead of disunion and strife. For our ignorance of those ways — which one portion of mankind calls the ways of Providence, dark and intricate; while another sees in them the action of blind Fatalism; and a third, simple chance, with neither gods nor devils to guide them — would surely disappear, if we would but attribute all these to their correct cause. With right knowledge, or at any rate with a confident conviction that our neighbours will no more work to hurt us than we would think of harming them, the two-thirds of the World’s evil would vanish into thin air. Were no man to hurt his brother, Karma-Nemesis would have neither cause to work for, nor weapons to act through. It is the constant presence in our midst of every element of strife and opposition, and the division of races, nations, tribes, societies and individuals into Cains and Abels, wolves and lambs, that is the chief cause of the “ways of Providence.” We cut these numerous windings in our destinies daily with our own hands, while we imagine that we are pursuing a track on the royal high road of respectability and duty, and then complain of those ways being so intricate and so dark. We stand bewildered before the mystery of our own making, and the riddles of life that we will not solve, and then accuse the great Sphinx of devouring us. But verily there is not an accident in our lives, not a misshapen day, or a misfortune, that could not be traced back to our own doings in this or in another life. If one breaks the laws of Harmony, or, as a theosophical writer expresses it, “the laws of life,” one must be prepared to fall into the chaos one has oneself produced. For, according to the same writer, “the only conclusion one can come to is that these laws of life are their own avengers; and consequently that every avenging Angel is only a typified representation of their re-action.”
Therefore, if any one is helpless before these immutable laws, it is not ourselves, the artificers of our destinies, but rather those angels, the guardians of harmony. Karma-Nemesis is no more than the (spiritual) dynamical effect of causes produced and forces awakened into activity by our own actions. It is a law of occult dynamics that “a given amount of energy expended on the spiritual or astral plane is productive of far greater results than the same amount expended on the physical objective plane of existence.”
This state will last till man’s spiritual intuitions are fully opened, which will not happen before we fairly cast off our thick coats of matter; until we begin acting from within, instead of ever following impulses from without; namely, those produced by our physical senses and gross selfish body. Until then the only palliative to the evils of life is union and harmony — a Brotherhood in actu, and altruism not simply in name. The suppression of one single bad cause will suppress not one, but a variety of bad effects. And if a Brotherhood or even a number of Brotherhoods may not be able to prevent nations from occasionally cutting each other’s throats — still unity in thought and action, and philosophical research into the mysteries of being, will always prevent some, while trying to comprehend that which has hitherto remained to them a riddle, from creating additional causes in a world already so full of woe and evil. Knowledge of Karma gives the conviction that if —
it is only because that mankind has ever shut its eyes to the great truth that man is himself his own saviour as his own destroyer. That he need not accuse Heaven and the gods, Fates and Providence, of the apparent injustice that reigns in the midst of humanity. But let him rather remember and repeat this bit of Grecian wisdom, which warns man to forbear accusing That which —
— which are now the ways and the high road on which move onward the great European nations. The Western Aryans had, every nation and tribe, like their Eastern brethren of the Fifth Race, their Golden and their Iron ages, their period of comparative irresponsibility, or the Satya age of purity, while now, several of them have reached their Iron Age, the Kali-Yuga, an age Black with Horrors. . . . .
It is true, on the other hand, that the exoteric cycles of every nation have been correctly made to be derived from, and depend on, sidereal motions. The latter are inseparably blended with the destinies of nations and men. But in their purely physical sense, Europe knows of no other cycles than the astronomical, and makes its computations accordingly. Nor will it hear of any other than imaginary circles or circuits in the starry heavens that gird them —
But with the pagans, with whom, as Coleridge has it — “. . . . . Time, cyclical time, was their abstraction of the Deity . .” that “Deity” manifesting co-ordinately with, and only through Karma, and being that karma-nemesis itself, the cycles meant something more than a mere succession of events, or a periodical space of time of more or less prolonged duration. For they were generally marked with recurrences of a more varied and intellectual character than are exhibited in the periodical return of seasons or of certain constellations. Modern wisdom is satisfied with astronomical computations and prophecies based on unerring mathematical laws. Ancient Wisdom added to the cold shell of astronomy the vivifying elements of its soul and spirit — astrology. And, as the sidereal motions do regulate and determine other events on Earth — besides potatoes and the periodical disease of that useful vegetable — (a statement which, not being amenable to scientific explanation, is merely derided, while accepted) — those events have to be allowed to find themselves predetermined by even simple astronomical computations. Believers in astrology will understand our meaning, sceptics will laugh at the belief and mock the idea. Thus they shut their eyes, ostrich-like, to their own fate. . . . . . . 
This because their little historical period, so called, allows them no margin for comparison. Sidereal heaven is before them; and though their spiritual vision is still unopened and the atmospheric dust of terrestrial origin seals their sight and chains it to the limits of physical systems, still they do not fail to perceive the movements and note the behaviour of meteors and comets. They record the periodical advents of those wanderers and “flaming messengers,” and prophesy, in consequence, earthquakes, meteoric showers, the apparition of certain stars, comets, etc., etc. Are they soothsayers for all that? No, they are learned astronomers.
Why, then, should occultists and astrologers, as learned, be disbelieved, when they prophesy the return of some cyclic event on the same mathematical principle? Why should the claim that they know it be ridiculed? Their forefathers and predecessors, having recorded the recurrence of such events in their time and day, throughout a period embracing hundreds of thousands of years, the conjunction of the same constellations must necessarily produce, if not quite the same, at any rate, similar effects. Are the prophecies derided, because of the claim of the hundreds of thousands of years of observation, and the millions of years of the human races? In its turn modern Science is laughed at for its far more modest geological and anthropological figures, by those who hold to Biblical chronology. Thus Karma adjusts even human laughter at the mutual expense of sects, learned societies, and individuals. Yet in the prognostication of such future events, at any rate, all foretold on the authority of cyclic recurrences, there is no psychic phenomenon involved. It is neither prevision, nor prophecy; no more than is the signalling of a comet or star, several years before its appearance. It is simply knowledge and mathematically correct computations which enable the Wise Men of the East to foretell, for instance, that England is on the eve of such or another catastrophe; France, nearing such a point of her cycle, and Europe in general threatened with, or rather, on the eve of, a cataclysm, which her own cycle of racial Karma has led her to. The reliability of the information depends, of course, on the acceptation or rejection of the claim for a tremendous period of historical observation. Eastern Initiates maintain that they have preserved records of the racial development and of events of universal import ever since the beginning of the Fourth Race — that which preceded being traditional. Moreover, those who believe in Seership and Occult powers will have no difficulty in crediting the general character, at least, of the information given, even if traditional, once the latter is checked and corrected by the corroboration of clairvoyance and esoteric knowledge. But in the present case no such metaphysical belief is claimed as our chief dependence, but a proof is given on what, to every Occultist, is quite scientific evidence — the records preserved through the Zodiac for incalculable ages.
It is now amply proved that even horoscopes and judiciary astrology are not quite based on a fiction, and that stars and constellations, consequently, have an occult and mysterious influence on, and connection with, individuals. And if with the latter, why not with nations, races, and mankind in bulk? This, again, is a claim made on the authority of the Zodiacal records. We shall examine then, if you please, how far the Zodiac was known to the ancients, and how far it is forgotten by the moderns.
“All men are apt to have a high conceit of their own understanding, and to be tenacious of the opinions they profess,” said Jordan, justly adding to this — “and yet almost all men are guided by the understandings of others, not by their own; and may be said more truly to adopt, than to beget, their opinions.”
This becomes doubly true in the matter of scientific opinions upon hypotheses offered for consideration — the prejudice and preconceptions of “authorities,” so called, often deciding upon questions of the most vital importance for history. There are several such predetermined opinions among our learned Orientalists, yet few are more unjust or illogical than the general error with regard to the antiquity of the Zodiac. Thanks to the hobby of some German Orientalists, English and American Sanskritists have accepted Professor Weber’s opinion that the peoples of India had no idea or knowledge of the Zodiac prior to the Macedonian invasion, and that it is from the Greeks that the ancient Hindus imported it into their country. We are further told, by several other “authorities,” that no Eastern nation knew of the Zodiac before the Hellenes kindly acquainted their neighbours with their invention. This, in the face of the Book of Job, declared, even by themselves, to be the oldest in the Hebrew canon, certainly prior to Moses, and which speaks of the making “of Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades (Ash, Kesil, and Cimah) and the chambers of the South” (ix. 9); of Scorpio and the Mazzaroths — the twelve signs (xxxviii., 31, 32), which words, if they mean anything, imply knowledge of the Zodiac even among the nomadic Arabic tribes. The Book of Job, they say, precedes Homer and Hesiod by at least one thousand years — the two Greek poets having themselves flourished some eight centuries before the Christian era (!!). One who prefers, by the bye, to believe Plato, who shows Homer flourishing far earlier, could point to a number of Zodiacal signs mentioned in the Iliad and the Odyssey, in the Orphic poems, and elsewhere. But since the cock-and-bull hypothesis of some modern critics to the effect that neither Orpheus, nor yet Homer and Hesiod, ever existed, it would seem time lost to mention these Archaic authors at all. The Arabian Job willsuffice; unless, indeed, his volume of lamentations, along with the poems of the two Greeks, adding to them those of Linus, should now be also declared to be the patriotic forgery of the Jew Aristobulus. But if the Zodiac was known in the days of Job, how could the civilized and philosophical Hindus have remained ignorant of it?
Risking the arrows of modern criticism — rather blunted by misuse — the reader may be made acquainted with Bailly’s learned opinion upon the subject. Inferred speculations may be shown to be erroneous. Mathematical calculations stand on more secure grounds. Taking as a starting point several astronomical references in Job, Bailly devised a very ingenious means of proving that the earliest founders of the science of the Zodiac belonged to an antediluvian, primitive people. The fact that he seems willing to see in Thoth, Seth, and in Fohi (of China), some of the Biblical patriarchs, does not interfere with the validity of his proof as to the antiquity of the Zodiac.  Even accepting, for argument’s sake, his cautious 3700 years B.C. as the correct age of the science, this date proves in the most irrefutable way that it was not the Greeks who invented the Zodiac, for the simple reason that they did not yet exist as a nation thirty-seven centuries B.C. — not as an historical race admitted by the critics, at any rate. Bailly then calculated the period at which the constellations manifested the atmospheric influence called by Job “sweet influences of the Pleiades”  (in Hebrew, Chimah, see Job xxxviii. 31); of the Cesil (Orion); and that of the desert rains with reference to Scorpio, the eighth constellation; and found that in presence the eternal conformity of those divisions of the zodiac and names of the planets applied in the same order everywhere and always; and in presence of the impossibility of attributing it all to chance and coincidence, “which never creates such similarities,” there must be allowed for the zodiac a great antiquity indeed. (See Astronomie Antique, pp. 63 to 74.)
Again, if the Bible is supposed to be an authority on any matter (and there are some who still believe so, whether from Christian or Kabalistical considerations), then the zodiac is clearly mentioned in II Kings, xxiii. 5. Before the “book of the law” was “found” by Hilkiah, the high priest (xxii.), the signs of the zodiac were known and worshipped. They were held in the same adoration as the sun and moon, since the “priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense . . . unto Baal, to the sun, moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven,” or the twelve signs or constellations, as the marginal note in the English Bible explains (see II. Kings xxiii. 5), had followed the injunction for centuries. They were stopped in their idolatry only by King Josiah, 624 years B.C.
The Old Testament is full of allusions to the twelve zodiacal signs, and the whole scheme is built upon it — heroes, personages, and events. Thus in the dream of Joseph, who saw eleven “stars” bowing to the twelfth, which was his “star,” the zodiac is meant. The Roman Catholics have discovered in it, moreover, a prophecy of Christ, who is that twelfth star, they say, and the eleven apostles; the absence of the twelfth being also regarded as a prophetic allusion to the treachery of Judas. The twelve sons of Jacob are again a reference to the same, as justly pointed out by Villapandus (Temple de Jerusalem, Vol. II., p. 2nd part, chap. xxx). Sir James Malcolm, in his History of Persia (ch. vii.), shows the Dabistan echoing all such traditions about the Zodiac. He traces the invention of it to the palmy days of the golden age of Iran, remarking that one of the said traditions maintains that the genii of the planets are represented under the same shapes and figures they had assumed, when they showed themselves to several holy prophets, and have thus led to the establishment of the rites based on the Zodiac.
Pythagoras, and after him Philo Judaeus, held the number 12 as very sacred. “The dodecahedron is a perfect number.” It is the one among the signs of the Zodiac, Philo adds, that the sun visits in twelve months, and it is to honour that sign that Moses divided his nation into twelve tribes, established the twelve cakes (Levit. xxiv., 5) of the shewbread, and placed twelve precious stones around the ephod of the pontiffs. (See De Profugis.)
According to Seneca, Berosus taught prophecy of every future event and cataclysm by the Zodiac; and the time fixed by him for the conflagration of the world (pralaya), and another for a deluge, is found to answer to the time given in an ancient Egyptian papyrus. It comes at every renewal of the cycle of the sidereal year of 25,868 years. The names of the Akkadian months were called by, and derived from, the names of the signs of the Zodiac, and the Akkadians themselves are far earlier than the Chaldaeans. Mr. Proctor shows, in his Myths and Marvels of Astronomy, that the ancient astronomers had acquired a system of the most accurate astronomy 2,400 years B.C.; the Hindus date their Kali Yug from a great periodical conjunction of the planets thirty-one centuries B.C.; and, withal, it is the Greeks belonging to the expedition of Alexander the Great, who were the instructors of the Aryan Hindus in astronomy!
Whether the origin of the Zodiac is Aryan or Egyptian, it is still of an immense antiquity. Simplicius (VIth cent. A.D.) writes that he had always heard that the Egyptians had kept astronomical observations and records for the last 630,000 years. This statement appears to frighten Mr. G. Massey, who remarks on this in his Natural Genesis (318) that “if we read this number of years by the month which Euxodus said the Egyptians termed a year, that would still yield the length of two cycles of precession (or 51,736 years).” Diogenes Laertius carried back the astronomical calculations of the Egyptians to 48,863 years before Alexander the Great (Proem, 2). Martianus Capella corroborates the same by telling posterity that the Egyptians had secretly studied astronomy for over 40,000 years, before they imparted their knowledge to the world (Astronomy of the Ancients, Lewis, p. 264).
Several valuable quotations are made in the Natural Genesis with the view of supporting the author’s theories, but they justify the teaching of the Secret Doctrine far more. For instance, Plutarch is quoted from his Life of Sulla, saying: “One day when the sky was serene . . . a sound was heard in it . . . of a trumpet, so loud, shrill and mournful, that it affrighted . . . the world. The Tuscan sages said that it portended a new race of men, and a renovation of the world; for they affirmed that there were eight several kinds of men, all being different in life and manners, and that Heaven had allotted each its time, which was limited by the circuit of the great year” (25,868 years).
This reminds one strongly of our seven races of men, and of the eighth — the “animal man” — descended from the later Third Race; as also of the successive submersions and destruction of the continents which finally disposed of almost the entire bulk of that race.
“The Assyrians,” says Iamblichus, “have not only preserved the memorials of seven and twenty myriads of years (270,000 years) as Hipparchus says they have, but likewise of the whole apocatastases and periods of the seven rulers of the world.” (Proclus, in Timaeus, b. I.) This is the calculation of the Esoteric Doctrine, as approximately as it can be. For 1,000,000 of years are allowed for our present Root-race (the Fifth), and about 850,000 years since the submersion of the last large island (part of the Continent), the Ruta of the Fourth Race, or the Atlanteans; while Daitya, a small island inhabited by a mixed race, was destroyed about 270,000 years ago, during the glacial period or thereabouts (vide Book II.). But the Seven Rulers, or the seven great Dynasties of the divine kings belong to the traditions of every great people of antiquity. Wherever twelve are mentioned, these are invariably the 12 signs of the zodiac.
So patent is the fact, that the Roman Catholic writers — especially among the French Ultramontanes — have tacitly agreed to connect the twelve Jewish Patriarchs with the signs of the Zodiac. This is done in a kind of prophetico-mystic way, which would sound to pious and ignorant ears like a portentous sign, a tacit divine recognition of the “chosen people of God,” whose finger has purposely traced in heaven, from the beginning of creation, the numbers of these patriarchs. For instance, these writers (De Mirville among others) recognise curiously enough all the characteristics of the 12 signs of the Zodiac, in the words addressed by the dying Jacob to his Sons, and in his definitions of the future of each Tribe. (Vide Genesis, ch. xlix.) Moreover, the respective banners of the same tribes are claimed to have exhibited the same symbols and the same names as the signs, repeated in the 12 stones of the Urim and Thummim, and on the 12 wings of the cherub. Leaving the proof of exactitude in the alleged correspondence to the said mystics, it is as follows: Man, or the Aquarius, is in the sphere of Reuben, who is declared as “unstable as water” (the Vulgate has it, to be “rushing like water,”); Gemini, in the strong fraternal association of Simeon and Levi; Leo, in that of Judah, “the strong Lion” of his tribe, “the lion’s whelp”; the Pisces, in Zabulon, who “shall dwell at the haven of the sea”; Taurus, in Issachar, because he is “a strong ass couching down,” etc., and therefore associated with the stables; Virgo-Scorpio, in Dan, who is described as “a serpent, an adder in the path that biteth,” etc.; Capricornus in Naphtali, who is “a hind (a deer) let loose”; Cancer, in Benjamin, for he is “ravenous”; Libra, the “Balance,” in Asher, whose “bread shall be fat”; Saggitarius in Joseph, because “his bow abode in strength.” To make up for the twelfth sign, Virgo, made independent of Scorpio, is Dina, the only daughter of Jacob. (See Genesis xlix.) Tradition shows the alleged tribes carrying the 12 signs on their banners. But the Bible is, besides these, full of theo-cosmological and astronomical symbols and personifications.
It remains to wonder, and query — if the actual, living Patriarch’s destiny was so indissolubly wound up with the Zodiac — how it is that after the loss of the ten tribes, ten signs out of the twelve have not also miraculously disappeared from the sidereal fields? But this is of no great concern. Let us rather busy ourselves with the history of the Zodiac itself. Now the reader may be reminded of some opinions expressed on the subject by several of the highest authorities in Science.
Newton believed the invention of the Zodiac could be traced as far back as the expedition of the Argonauts; and Dulaure fixed its origin at 6,500 years B.C., just 2,496 years before the creation of the World according to the Bible chronology.
Creuzer believes it very easy to show that most of the theogonies are intimately connected with religious calendars, and point to the Zodiac as their prime origin — if not identical with the Zodiac known to us now, then something very analogous to it. He feels certain that the Zodiac and its mystic relations are at the bottom of all the mythologies, under one form or the other, and that it had existed in the old form for ages before; owing to some singular co-ordination of events, it was brought out in the present defined astronomical garb. (Creuzer, Book III., page 930.)
Whether “the genii of the planets” (our Dhyan Chohans of supra-mundane spheres) showed themselves to “holy prophets” or not, as claimed in the Dabistan, it would seem that great laymen and warriors were favoured in the same way in days of old, when astrological magic and theophania went hand in hand in Chaldea. For Xenophon, no ordinary man, narrates of Cyrus, that at the moment of his death that king was giving ardent thanks to gods and heroes, for having so often instructed him themselves about the signs in heaven, [[ev ouraniois semeiois]] (Cyropedie,” Ant. du Zodiaque.”)
Unless the science of the zodiac is supposed to be of the highest antiquity and universality, how account for its signs being traced in the oldest theogonies? Laplace is said to have felt struck with amazement at the idea of the days of Mercury (Wednesday), Venus (Friday), Jupiter (Thursday), Saturn (Saturday), and others being related to the days of the week in the same order and with the same names in India as in Northern Europe. “Try, if you can, with the present system of autochthonous civilizations, so much in fashion in our day, to explain how nations with no ancestry, no traditions or birthplace in common, could have succeeded in inventing a kind of celestial phantasmagoria, a veritable imbroglio of sidereal denominations, without sequence or object, having no figurative relation with the constellations they represent, and still less, apparently, with the phases of our terrestrial life they are made to signify,” had there not been a general intention and a universal cause and belief, at the root of all this? (Pneumatologie, Vol. IV., p. 61.) Most truly has Dupuis asserted the same: “Il est impossible de decouvrir le moindre trait de ressemblance entre les parties du ciel et les figures que les astronomes y ont arbitrairement tracees, et de l’autre cote; le hazard est impossible,” he says. (Origine des Cultes, “Zodiaque.”)
Most certainly chance is “impossible.” There is no “chance” in Nature, wherein everything is mathematically co-ordinate and mutually related in its units. “Chance,” says Coleridge, “is but the pseudonym of God (or Nature), for those particular cases which He does not choose to subscribe openly with His sign manual.” Replace the word “God” by that of Karma and it will become an Eastern axiom. Therefore, the sidereal “prophecies” of the zodiac, as they are called by Christian mystics, never point to any one particular event, however solemn and sacred it may be for some one portion of humanity, but to ever-recurrent, periodical laws in nature, understood but by the Initiates of the sidereal gods themselves.
No occultist, no astrologer of Eastern birth, will ever agree with Christian mystics, or even with Kepler’s mystical astronomy, his great science and erudition notwithstanding; simply because, if his premises are quite correct, his deductions therefrom are one-sided and biassed by Christian preconceptions. Where the latter finds a prophecy directly pointing at the Saviour, other nations see a symbol of an eternal law decreed for the actual manvantara. Why see in the Pisces a direct reference to Christ — one of the several world-reformers, a Saviour but for his direct followers, but only a great and glorious Initiate for all the rest — when that constellation shines as a symbol of all the past, present, and future Spiritual Saviours who dispense light and dispel mental darkness? Christian symbologists have tried to prove that it was that of Ephraim (Joseph’s son), the elect of Jacob, that therefore, it was at the moment of the Sun entering into the sign of the Fish (Pisces) that “the Elect Messiah, the [[Ichthus]] of the first Christians, had to be born. But, if Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah — was he really born at that “moment,” or was he made to be so born by the adaptation of theologians, who sought only to make their preconceived ideas fit in with sidereal facts and popular belief? Everyone knows that the real time and year of the birth of Jesus are totally unknown. And it is the Jews, whose forefathers have made the word Dag signify both “fish” and “Messiah,” who, during the forced development of their rabbinical language, are the first to deny this Christian claim. And what of the further facts that Brahmins also connect their “Messiah,” the eternal Avatar Vishnu, with a fish and the Deluge, and that the Babylonians made of their Dag-On, equally a fish and a Messiah, the Man-Fish and Prophet?
There are those learned iconoclasts among Egyptologists, who say that “when the Pharisees sought a ‘sign from heaven’ Jesus said, ‘there shall no sign be given but the sign of Jonas’ (Mat. xvi. 4). . . . . The sign of Jonas is that of the Oan or fishman of Nineveh. . . . . Assuredly there was no other sign than that of the Sun reborn in Pisces. The voice of the Secret Wisdom says those who are looking for signs can have no other than that of the returning fish-man Ichthys, Oannes, or Jonas — who could not be made flesh.”
It would appear that Kepler maintained it as a positive fact that, at the moment of the “incarnation,” all the planets were in conjunction in the sign of Pisces, called by the Jews (the Kabalists) the “constellation of the Messiah.” “It is in this constellation,” he averred, “that was placed the star of the Magi.” This statement, quoted by Dr. Sepp (Vie de notre Seigneur Jesus Christ, Vol. I. p. 9), emboldened him to remark that “all the Jewish traditions while announcing that star, that many nations have seen,” (!)  added that “it would absorb the seventy planets that preside over the destinies of various nations on this globe.”  “In virtue of those natural prophecies,” explains Dr. Sepp, “it was written in the stars of the firmament that the Messiah would be born in the lunar year of the world 4320, in that memorable year when the entire choir of the planets would be feasting its jubilee.”
There was indeed a rage, at the beginning of the present century, for claiming from the Hindus restoration of an alleged robbery from the Jews of their “gods,” patriarchs, and chronology. It was Wilford who had recognized Noah in Prithee and in Satyavrata, Enos in Dhruva, and even Assur in Iswara. Yet, after being residents for so many years in India, some Orientalists, at least, ought to have known that it was not the Hindus alone who had these figures, or who had divided their great age into four minor ages. Nevertheless writers in the Asiatic Researches indulged in the most extravagant speculations.
“Christian theologians think it their duty to write against the long periods of Hindu chronology,” argues very pertinently S. A. Mackey, the Norwich “philosopher, astronomer, and shoemaker.” “But when a man of learning crucifies the names and numbers of the ancients, and wrings and twists them into a form which means something quite foreign to the intention of the ancient authors; but which, so mutilated, fits in with the birth of some maggot pre-existing in his own brain with so much exactness that he pretends to be amazed at the discovery, I cannot think him quite so pardonable” (Key of Urania).
This is intended to apply to Captain (later Colonel) Wilford, but the words may fit more than one of our modern Orientalists. The former was the first to crown his unlucky speculations in Hindu chronology and the Puranas by connecting the 4,320,000 years with biblical chronology, simply dwarfing the figures to 4,320 years (the supposed lunar year of the Nativity), and Dr. Sepp has simply plagiarized the idea from this gallant officer. Moreover, he persisted in seeing in them Jewish property, as well as a Christian prophecy, thus accusing the Aryans of having helped themselves to Semitic revelation, whereas it was the reverse. The Jews, moreover, need not be accused of despoiling the Hindus, of whose figures Ezra probably knew nothing. They had evidently and undeniably borrowed them from the Chaldeans, along with their gods. Of the 432,000 years of the Chaldean divine Dynasties  they made 4,320 lunar years from the world’s creation to the Christian era; as to the Babylonian and Egyptian Gods, they transformed them as quietly and modestly into Patriarchs. Every nation was more or less guilty of such refashioning and adaptation of a Pantheon (common once to all) of universal, into national, tribal gods and Heroes. It was their property in its new Pentateuchal garb, and no one of the Israelites has ever forced it upon any other nation — least of all upon Europeans.
Without stopping to notice this very unscientific chronology more than is necessary, we may make a few remarks that may be found to the point. These figures of 4,320 lunar years of the world (in the Bible the solar years are used) are not fanciful, as such, even if their application is quite erroneous; for they are only the distorted echo of the primitive esoteric, and later on Brahminical doctrine concerning the Yugas. A “Day” of Brahma equals 4,320,000,000 years, as also a “Night” of Brahma, or the duration of Pralaya, after which a new Sun rises triumphantly over a new manvantara, for the septenary chain it illuminates. The teaching had penetrated into Palestine and Europe centuries before the Christian era (see Isis Unveiled II. 132), and was present in the minds of the Mosaic Jews, who based upon it their small cycle, though it received full expression only through the Christian chronologers of the Bible, who adopted it, as also the 25th of December, the day on which all the solar gods were said to have been incarnated. What wonder, then, that the Messiah was made to be born “the lunar year of the world 4,320?” The “Son of Righteousness and Salvation” had once more arisen and had dispelled pralayic darkness of chaos and non-being on the plane of our objective little globe and chain. Once the subject of the adoration was settled upon, it was easy to make the supposed events of his birth, life, and death, fit in with the Zodiacal exigencies and old traditions, though they had to be somewhat remodelled for the occasion.
Thus what Kepler said, as a great astronomer, becomes comprehensible. He recognised the grand and universal importance of all such planetary conjunctions, “each of which” — as he has well said — “is a climacteric year of Humanity.”  The rare conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars has its significance and importance on account of its certain great results —in India and China as much as it has in Europe for the respective mystics of all those countries. And it is certainly no better now than a mere assumption to maintain that nature had only Christ in view, when building her (to the profane) fantastic and meaningless constellations. If it is claimed that it was no hazard that could lead the archaic architects of the Zodiac, thousands of years ago, to mark with the asterisk (a) the figure of Taurus, with no better or more valid proof of it being prophetic of the Verbum or Christ than that the aleph of Taurus means “the one” and the first, and that Christ was also the alpha or the one, then this “proof” may be shown strangely invalidated in more than one way. To begin with, the Zodiac existed before the Christian era, at all events; further, all the Sun-gods had been mystically connected with that constellation (Taurus) — Osiris, for instance — and were all called by their respective votaries “the First.” Then the compilers of the mystical epithets given to the Christian Saviour, were all more or less acquainted with the significance of the Zodiacal signs; and it is easier to suppose that they should have arranged their claims so as to answer the mystic signs, than that the latter should have shone as a prophecy for one portion of humanity, for millions of years, taking no heed of the numberless generations that had gone before, and those to be born hereafter.
“It is not simple chance,” we are told, “that has placed in certain spheres, on a throne, the head of that bull (Taurus), trying to push away with the ansated cross on its horns, a Dragon; the more so, since this constellation of Taurus was called ‘the great city of God and the mother of revelations,’ and also ‘the interpreter of the divine voice,’ the Apis pacis of Hermoutis, in Egypt, which (as the patristic fathers would assure the world) preferred oracles that related to the birth of the Saviour” (Pneumatologie, iv., 71).
To this theological assumption there are several answers. Firstly, the ansated Egyptian cross, or tau, the Jaina cross, or Swastica, and the Christian cross have all the same meaning. Secondly, no peoples or nations except the Christians gave the significance to the Dragon that is given to it now. The serpent was the symbol of Wisdom; and the Bull (Taurus) the symbol of physical or terrestrial generation. Thus the latter, pushing off the Dragon, or spiritual, Divine Wisdom, with the Tau, or Cross — which is esoterically “the foundation and framework of all construction” — would have an entirely phallic, physiological meaning, had it not still another significance unknown to our Biblical scholars and symbologists. At any rate, it shows no special reference to the Verbum of St. John, except, perhaps, in a general sense. The taurus (which, by the way, is no lamb, but a bull) was sacred in every Cosmogony, with the Hindus as with the Zoroastrians, with the Chaldees as with the Egyptians. So much, every schoolboy knows.
It may perhaps help to refresh the memory of our Theosophists by referring them to what was said of the Virgin and the Dragon, and the universality of periodical births and re-births of World-Saviours — solar gods — in Isis, II., 490, with reference to certain passages in Revelations.
In 1853, the savant known as Erard-Mollien read before the Institute of France a paper tending to prove the antiquity of the Indian Zodiac, in the signs of which were found the root and philosophy of all the most important religious festivals of that country, the origin of which religious ceremonies goes back into the night of time at least 3,000 B.C., as the lecturer tried to demonstrate. The Zodiac of the Hindus, he thought, was far anterior to the Zodiac of the Greeks, and differed from it in some particulars vastly. In it one sees the Dragon on a tree, at the foot of which the “Virgin,” Kanya-Durga, one of the most ancient goddesses, is placed on a lion dragging after him the solar car. “This is the reason why,” he added, “this Virgin Durga is not the simple memento of an astronomical fact, but verily the most ancient divinity of the Indian Olympus. She is evidently the same of whom all the Sibylline books spoke, those works that have been the source of the inspiration of Virgil; the virgin whose return was prophesied as a sign of universal renovation. . . . . And why,” he added, “when we see to this day, the months named after the deity-names of this solar Zodiac by the Malayalim-speaking people of southern India — why should that people have abandoned their ancestral Zodiac to burden themselves with that of the Greeks? Everything proves, on the contrary, that these zodiacal figures have been transmitted to the Greeks by the Chaldees, who got them from the Brahmans.” (See Recueil de l’Academie des Inscriptions,1853.)
But all this is very poor testimony. Let us remember, however, also that which was said and accepted by the contemporaries of Volney, who, in his “Ruins of Empires,” p. 360, remarks that as Aries was in its fifteenth degree 1447 B.C., it follows that the first degree of “Libra” could not have coincided with the Vernal equinox more lately than 15,194 years B.C., to which, if you add 1,790 years since Christ, it appears that 16,984 years have elapsed since the origin of the Zodiac.
Dr. Schlegel, moreover, in his Uranographie Chinoise assigns to the Chinese Astronomical Sphere an antiquity of 18,000 years. (Vide pp. 54, 196, et seq.)
Nevertheless, as opinions quoted without adequate proofs are of little avail, it may be more useful to turn to scientific evidence. M. Bailly, the famous French astronomer of the last century, Member of the Academy, etc., etc., asserts that the Hindu systems of astronomy are by far the oldest, and that from them the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and even the Jews derived their knowledge. In support of these views he says —
“The astronomers who preceded the epoch 1,491 are, first, the Alexandrian Greeks; Hipparchus, who flourished 125 years before our era, and Ptolemy, 260 years after Hipparchus. Following these were the Arabs, who revived the study of astronomy in the ninth century. These were succeeded by the Persians and the Tartars, to whom we owe the tables of Massireddin in 1269, and those of Ulug-beg in 1437. Such is the succession of events in Asia as known prior to the Indian epoch 1491. What, then, is an epoch? It is the observation of the longitude of a star at a given moment, the place in the sky where it was seen, and which serves as a point of reference, a starting-point from which to calculate both the past and future positions of the star from its observed motion. But an epoch is useless unless the motion of the star has been determined. A people, new to science and obliged to borrow a foreign astronomy, finds no difficulty in fixing an epoch, since the only observation needed is one which can be made at any moment. But what it needs above all, what it is obliged to borrow, are those elements which depend on accurate determination, and which require continuous observation; above all, those motions which depend on time, and which can only be accurately determined by centuries of observation. These motions, then, must be borrowed from a nation which has made such observations, and has behind it the labours of centuries. We conclude, therefore, that a new people will not borrow the epochs of an ancient one, without also borrowing from them the ‘average motions.’ Starting from this principle we shall find that the Hindu epochs 1491 and 3102 could not have been derived from those of either Ptolemy or Ulug-beg.”
There remains the supposition that the Hindus, comparing their observations in 1491 with those previously made by Ulug-beg and Ptolemy, used the intervals between these observations to determine the “average motions.” The date of Ulug-beg is too recent for such a determination; while those of Ptolemy and Hipparchus were barely remote enough. But if the Hindu motions had been determined from these comparisons, the epochs would be connected together. Starting from the epochs of Ulug-beg and Ptolemy we should arrive at all those of the Hindus. But this is not the case. Hence foreign epochs were either unknown or useless to the Hindus. 
We may add to this another important consideration. When a nation is obliged to borrow from its neighbours the methods or the average motions of its astronomical tables, it has even greater need to borrow, besides these, the knowledge of the inequalities of the motions of the heavenly bodies, the motions of the apogee, of the nodes, and of the inclination of the ecliptic; in short, all those elements the determination of which requires the art of observing, some instrumental appliances, and great industry. All these astronomical elements, differing more or less with the Greeks of Alexandria, the Arabs, the Persians and the Tartars, exhibit no resemblance whatever with those of the Hindus. The latter, therefore, borrowed nothing from their neighbours.
Condensing Bailly’s remarks, he comes to the following conclusions: —
If the Hindus did not borrow their epoch, they must have possessed a real one of their own, based on their own observations; and this must be either the epoch of the year 1491 after, or that of the year 3102 before our era, the latter preceding by 4592 years the epoch 1491. We have to choose between these two epochs and to decide which of them is based on observation. But before stating the arguments which can and must decide the question, we may be permitted to make a few remarks to those who may be inclined to believe that it is modern observations and calculations which have enabled the Hindus to determine the past positions of the heavenly bodies. It is far from easy to determine the celestial movements with sufficient accuracy to ascend the stream of time for 4592 years, and to describe the phenomena which must have occurred at that period.
We possess to-day excellent instruments; exact observations have been made for some two or three centuries, which already permit us to calculate with considerable accuracy the average motions of the planets; we have the observations of the Chaldeans, of Hipparchus and of Ptolemy, which, owing to their remoteness from the present time, permit us to fix these motions with greater certainty. Still we cannot undertake to represent with invariable accuracy the observations throughout the long period intervening between the Chaldeans and ourselves; and still less can we undertake to determine with exactitude events occurring 4592 years before our day. Cassini and Maier have each determined the secular motion of the moon, and they differ by 3m. 43s. This difference would give rise in forty-six centuries to an uncertainty of nearly three degrees in the moon’s place. Doubtless one of these determinations is more accurate than the other; and it is for observations of very great antiquity to decide between them. But in very remote periods, where observations are lacking, it follows that we are uncertain as to the phenomena. How, then, could the Hindus have calculated back from the year 1491 A.D. to the year 3102 before our era, if they were only recent students of astronomy?
The Orientals have never been what we are. However high an opinion of their knowledge we may form from the examination of their Astronomy, we cannot suppose them ever to have possessed that great array of instruments which distinguishes our modern observatories, and which is the product of simultaneous progress in various arts, nor could they have possessed that genius for discovery, which has hitherto seemed to belong exclusively to Europe, and which, supplying the place of time, causes the rapid progress of science and of human intelligence. If the Asiatics have been powerful, learned and wise, it is power and time which have produced their merit and success of all kinds. Power has founded or destroyed their empires; now it has erected edifices imposing by their bulk, now it has reduced them to venerable ruins; and while these vicissitudes alternated with each other, patience accumulated knowledge; and prolonged experience produced wisdom. It is the antiquity of the nations of the East which has erected their scientific fame.
If the Hindus possessed in 1491 a knowledge of the heavenly motions sufficiently accurate to enable them to calculate backwards for 4,592 years, it follows that they could only have obtained this knowledge from very ancient observations. To grant them such knowledge, while refusing them the observations from which it is derived, is to suppose an impossibility; it would be equivalent to assuming that at the outset of their career they had already reaped the harvest of time and experience. While on the other hand, if their epoch of 3102 is assumed to be real, it would follow that the Hindus had simply kept pace with successive centuries down to the year 1491 of our era. Thus, time itself was their teacher; they knew the motions of the heavenly bodies during these periods, because they had seen them; and the duration of the Hindu people on earth is the cause of the fidelity of its records and the accuracy of its calculations.
It would seem that the problem as to which of the two epochs of 3102 and 1491 is the real one ought to be solved by one consideration, viz., that the ancients in general, and particularly the Hindus, calculated, and therefore observed, eclipses only. Says Bailly: —
Now, there was no eclipse of the sun at the moment of the epoch 1492; and no eclipse of the moon either 14 days before or after that moment. Therefore the epoch 1491 is not based on an observation. As regards the epoch 3102, the Brahmins of Tirvalour place it at sunrise on February 18th. The sun was then in the first point of the Zodiac according to its true longitude. The other tables show that at the preceding midnight the moon was in the same place, but according to its average longitude. The Brahmins tell us also that this first point, the origin of their Zodiac, was, in the year 3102, 54 degrees behind the equinox. It follows that the origin — the first point of their Zodiac — was therefore in the sixth degree of Libra.
There occurred, therefore, about this time and place an average conjunction; “and indeed this conjunction is given in our best tables: La Caille’s for the sun and Maier’s for the moon.” There was no eclipse of the sun, the moon being too distant from her node; but fourteen days later, the moon having approached the node, must have been eclipsed. Maier’s tables, used without correction for acceleration, give this eclipse; but they place it during the day when it could not have been observed in India. Cassini’s tables give it as occurring at night, which shows that Maier’s motions are too rapid for distant centuries, when the acceleration is not allowed for; and which also proves that in spite of the improvement of our knowledge we can still be uncertain as to the actual aspect of the heavens in past times.
Therefore we believe that as between the two Hindu epochs, the real one is the year 3102, because it was accompanied by an eclipse which could be observed, and which must have served to determine it. This is a first proof of the truth of the longitude assigned by the Hindus to the sun and the moon at this instant; and this proof would perhaps be sufficient, were it not that this ancient determination becomes of the greatest importance for the verification of the motions of these bodies, and must therefore be borne out by every possible proof of its authenticity.
We notice, first, that the Hindus seem to have combined two epochs together into the year 3102. The Tirvalour Brahmins reckon primarily from the first moment of the Kali-Yug; but they have a second epoch placed 2d. 3h. 32m. 30s. later. The latter is the true astronomical epoch, while the former seems to be a civil era. But if this epoch of the Kali-Yug had no reality, and was the mere result of a calculation, why should it be thus divided? Their calculated astronomical epoch would have become that of the Kali-Yug, which would have been placed at the conjunction of the sun and the moon, as is the case with the epochs of the three other tables. They must have had some reason for distinguishing between the two; and this reason can only be due to the circumstances and the time of the epoch; which therefore could not be the result of calculation. This is not all; starting from the solar epoch determined by the rising of the sun on February 18th, 3102, and tracing back events 2d. 3h. 32m. 30s., we come to 2h. 27m. 30s. a.m. of February 16th, which is the instant of the beginning of Kali-Yuga. It is curious that this age has not been made to commence at one of the four great divisions of the day. It might be suspected that the epoch should be midnight, and that the 2h. 27m. 30s. are a meridian correction. But whatever may have been the reason for fixing on this moment, it is plain that were this epoch the result of calculation, it would have been just as easy to carry it back to midnight, so as to make the epoch correspond to one of the chief divisions of the day, instead of placing it at a moment fixed by the fraction of a day.
2nd. The Hindus assert that at the first moment of Kali-Yug there was a conjunction of all the planets; and their tables show this conjunction while ours indicate that it might actually have occurred. Jupiter and Mercury were in exactly the same degree of the ecliptic; Mars being 8 [[degrees]] and Saturn 17 [[degrees]] distant from it. It follows that about this time, or some fourteen days after the commencement of Kali-Yug, the Hindus saw four planets emerge successively from the Sun’s rays; first Saturn, then Mars, then Jupiter and Mercury, and these planets appeared united in a somewhat small space. Although Venus was not among them, the taste for the marvellous caused it to be called a general conjunction of all the planets. The testimony of the Brahmins here coincides with that of our tables; and this evidence, the result of a tradition, must be founded on actual observation.
3rd. We may remark that this phenomenon was visible about a fortnight after the epoch, and exactly at the time when the eclipse of the moon must have been observed, which served to fix the epoch. The two observations mutually confirm each other; and whoever made the one must have made the other also.
4th. We may believe also that the Hindus made at the same time a determination of the place of the moon’s node; this seems indicated by their calculation. They give the longitude of this point of the lunar orbit for the time of their epoch, and to this they add as a constant 40m., which is the node’s motion in 12d. 14h. It is as if they stated that this determination was made 13 days after their epoch, and that to make it correspond to that epoch, we must add the 40m. through which the node has retrograded in the interval.
This observation is, therefore, of the same date as that of the lunar eclipse; thus giving three observations, which are mutually confirmatory.
5th. It appears from the description of the Hindu Zodiac given by M. C. Gentil, that on it the places of the stars named “The Eye of Taurus” and the “Wheat-ear of Virgo,” can be determined for the commencement of the Kali-Yug.
Now, comparing these places with the actual positions, reduced by our precession of the equinoxes to the moment in question, we see that the point of origin of the Hindu Zodiac must lie between the fifth and sixth degree of Libra. The Brahmins, therefore, were right in placing it in the sixth degree of that sign, the more so since this small difference may be due to the proper motion of the stars which is unknown.
Thus it was yet another observation which guided the Hindus in this fairly accurate determination of the first point of their movable zodiac.
It does not seem possible to doubt the existence in antiquity of observations of this date. The Persians say that four beautiful stars were placed as guardians at the four corners of the world. Now it so happens that at the commencement of Kali Yug, 3000 or 3100 years before our era, the “Eye of the Bull” and the “Heart of the Scorpion” were exactly at the equinoctial points, while the “Heart of the Lion” and the “Southern Fish” were pretty near the solstitial points. An observation of the rising of the Pleiades in the evening, seven days before the autumnal equinox, also belongs to the year 3000 before our era. This and similar observations collected in Ptolemy’s calendars, though he does not give their authors, these observations, which are older than those of the Chaldeans, may well be the work of the Hindus. They are well acquainted with the constellation of the Pleiades, and while we call it vulgarly the “Poussiniere” they name it: Pillaloo-codi — the “Hen and chickens.” This name has therefore, passed from people to people, and comes to us from the most ancient nations of Asia. We see that the Hindus must have observed the rising of the Pleiades, and have made use of it to regulate their years and their months; for this constellation is also called Krittika. Now they have a month of the same name, and this coincidence can only be due to the fact that this month was announced by the rising or setting of the constellation in question. But what is even more decisive as showing that the Hindus observed the stars, and in the same way that we do, marking their position by their longitude, is a fact mentioned by Augustinus Riccius that, according to observations attributed to Hermes, and made 1,985 years before Ptolemy, the brilliant star in the Lyre and that in the Heart of the Hydra were each seven degrees in advance of their respective positions as determined by Ptolemy.
This determination seems very extraordinary. The stars advance regularly with respect to the equinox; and Ptolemy ought to have found the longitudes 28 degrees in excess of what they were 1985 years before his time. Besides, there is a remarkable peculiarity about this fact; the same error or difference being found in the positions of both stars; therefore the error was due to some cause affecting both stars equally. It was to explain this peculiarity that the Arab Thebith imagined the stars to have an oscillatory movement, causing them to advance and recede alternately.
This hypothesis was easily disproved; but the observations attributed to Hermes remained unexplained. Their explanation, however, is found in Hindu Astronomy. At the date fixed for these observations, 1985 years before Ptolemy, the first point of the Hindu Zodiac was 35 degrees in advance of the equinox; therefore the longitudes reckoned for this point are 35 degrees in excess of those reckoned from the equinox. But after the lapse of 1985 years the stars would have advanced 28 degrees, and there would remain a difference of only 7 degrees between the longitudes of Hermes and those of Ptolemy, and the difference would be the same for the two stars, since it is due to the difference between the starting-points of the Hindu Zodiac and that of Ptolemy, which reckons from the equinox. This explanation is so simple and natural that it must be true. We do not know whether Hermes, so celebrated in antiquity, was a Hindu, but we see that the observations attributed to him are reckoned in the Hindu manner, and we conclude that they were made by the Hindus, who, therefore, were able to make all the observations we have enumerated, and which we find noted in their tables.
6th. The observation of the year 3102, which seems to have fixed their epoch, was not a difficult one. We see that the Hindus, having once determined the moon’s daily motion of 13deg. 10m. 35sec., made use of it to divide the Zodiac into 27 constellations, related to the period of the moon, which takes about 27 days to describe it.
It was by this method that they determined the positions of the stars in this Zodiac; it was thus they found that a certain star of the Lyre was in 8h. 24m., the Heart of the Hydra in 4d. 7h., longitudes which are ascribed to Hermes, but which are calculated on the Hindu Zodiac. Similarly, they discovered that the “Wheatear of Virgo” forms the commencement of their fifteenth constellation, and the “Eye of Taurus” the end of the fourth; these stars being the one in 6d. 6h. 40m., the other in 1d. 23h. 20min. of the Hindu Zodiac. This being so, the eclipse of Moon which occurred 14 days after the Kali Yug epoch, took place at a point between the “Wheat Ear” of Virgo and the star [[ ]] of the same constellation. These stars are very approximately a constellation apart, the one beginning the fifteenth, the other the sixteenth. Thus it would not be difficult to determine the moon’s place by measuring her distance from one of these stars; from this they deduced the position of the sun, which is opposite to the moon, and then, knowing their average motions, they calculated that the moon was at the first point of the Zodiac according to her average longitude at midnight on the 17th-18th February of the year 3,102 before our era, and that the sun occupied the same place six hours later according to his true longitude; an event which fixes the commencement of the Hindu year.
7th. The Hindus state that 20,400 years before the age of Kali Yug, the first point of their Zodiac coincided with the vernal equinox, and that the sun and moon were in conjunction there. This epoch is obviously fictitious;  but we may inquire from what point, from what epoch, the Hindus set out in establishing it. Taking the Hindu values for the revolution of the sun and moon, viz., 365d. 6h. 12m. 30s., and 27d. 7h. 43m. 13s., we have —
Such is the result obtained by starting from the Kali Yuga epoch; and the assertion of the Hindus, that there was a conjunction at the time stated, is founded on their tables; but if, using the same elements, we start from the era of the year 1491, or from another placed in the year 1282, of which we shall speak later, there will always be a difference of almost one or two days. It is both just and natural, in verifying the Hindu calculations, to take those among their elements which give the same result as they had themselves arrived at, and to set out from that one among their epochs which enables us to arrive at the fictitious epoch in question. Hence, since to make this calculation they must have set out from their real epoch, the one which was founded on an observation and not from any of those which were derived by this very calculation from the former, it follows that their real epoch was that of the year 3102 before our era.
8th. The Tiravalore Brahmins give the Moon’s motion as 7d. 2h. 8m. on the movable Zodiac, and as 9d. 7h. 45m. 1s. as referred to the equinox in a great period of 1,600,984 days, or 4,386 years and 94 days. We believe this motion to have been determined by observation; and we must state at the outset that this period is of an extent which renders it but ill suited to the calculation of the mean motions.
In their astronomical calculations the Hindus make use of periods of 248, 3,031, and 12,372 days; but, apart from the fact that these periods, though much too short, do not present the inconvenience of the former, they contain an exact number of revolutions of the moon referred to its apogee. They are in reality mean motions. The great period of 1,600,984 is not a sum of accumulated revolutions; there is no reason why it should contain 1,600,984 rather than 1,600,985 days. It would seem that observation alone must have fixed the number of days and marked the beginning and end of the period. This period ends on the 21st of May, 1282, of our era at 5h. 15m. 30s. at Benares. The moon was then in apogee, according to the Hindus,
The determination of the moon’s place by the Brahmins thus differs only by nine minutes from ours, and that of the apogee by twenty-two minutes, and it is very evident that they could only have obtained this agreement with our best tables and this exactitude in the celestial positions by observation. If then, observation fixed the end of this period, there is every reason to believe that it determined its commencement. But then this motion, determined directly, and from nature, would of necessity be in close agreement with the true motions of the heavenly bodies.
And in fact the Hindu motion during this long period of 4,883 years, does not differ by a minute from that of Cassini, and agrees equally with that of Maier. Thus two peoples, the Hindus and the Europeans, placed at the two extremities of the world, and perhaps as distant by their institutions, have obtained precisely the same results as regards the moon’s motions; and an agreement which would be inconceivable, if it were not based on the observation and mutual imitation of nature. We must remark that the four tables of the Hindus are all copies of the same Astronomy. It cannot be denied that the Siamese tables existed in 1687, when they were brought from India by M. de la Loubere. At that time the tables of Cassini and Maier were not in existence, and thus the Hindus were already in possession of the exact motion contained in these tables, while we did not yet possess it.  It must, therefore, be admitted that the accuracy of this Hindu motion is the point of observation. It is exact throughout this period of 4,383 years, because it was taken from the sky itself — and if observation determined its close, it fixed its commencement also. It is the longest period which has been observed and of which the recollection is preserved in the annals of Astronomy. It has its origin in the epoch of the year 3102, B.C., and it is a demonstrative proof of the reality of that epoch.
Bailly is referred to at such length, as he is one of the few scientific men who have tried to do full justice to the Astronomy of the Aryans. From John Bentley down to Burgess’ “Surya-Siddhanta,” not one astronomer has been fair enough to the most learned people of Antiquity. However distorted and misunderstood the Hindu Symbology, no Occultist can fail to do it justice once that he knows something of the Secret Sciences; nor will he turn away from their metaphysical and mystical interpretation of the Zodiac, even though the whole Pleiades of Royal Astronomical Societies rise in arms against their mathematical rendering of it. The descent and re-ascent of the Monad or Soul cannot be disconnected from the Zodiacal signs, and it looks more natural, in the sense of the fitness of things, to believe in a mysterious sympathy between the metaphysical soul and the bright constellations, and in the influence of the latter on the former, than in the absurd notion that the creators of Heaven and Earth have placed in heaven the types of twelve vicious Jews. And if, as the author of The Gnostics asserts, the aim of all the Gnostic schools and the later Platonists “was to accommodate the old faith to the influence of Buddhistic theosophy, the very essence of which was that the innumerable gods of the Hindu mythology were but names for the Energies of the First Triad in its successive AVATARS or manifestations unto man,” whither can we turn to trace these theosophic ideas to their very root — better than to old Indian wisdom? We say it again: archaic Occultism would remain incomprehensible to all, if it were rendered otherwise than through the more familiar channels of Buddhism and Hinduism. For the former is the emanation of the latter; and both are children of one mother — ancient Lemuro-Atlantean Wisdom.
The reader has had the whole case presented to him from both sides, and it remains with him to decide whether its summary stands in our favour or not. If there were such a thing as void, a vacuum in Nature, one would find it produced, according to a physical law, in the minds of helpless admirers of the “lights” of science, who pass their time in mutually destroying their teachings. If ever the theory that “two lights make darkness” found its application it is in this case, when one half of the “lights” imposes its Forces and “modes of motion” on the belief of the faithful, and the other half opposes the very existence of the same. “Ether, Matter, Energy” — the sacred hypostatical trinity, the three principles of the truly unknown God of Science, called by them Physical Nature!
Theology is taken to task and ridiculed for believing in the union of three persons in one Godhead — one God as to substance, three persons as to individuality; and we are laughed at for our belief in unproved and unprovable doctrines, in Angels and Devils, Gods and Spirits. And, indeed, that which made the Scientists win the day over Theology in the Great “Conflict between Religion and Science,” was precisely the argument that neither the identity of that substance, nor the triple individuality claimed, after having been conceived, invented, and worked out in the depths of Theological Consciousness, could be proved by any Scientific inductive process of reasoning, least of all on the evidence of our senses. Religion must perish, it is said, because it teaches mysteries. Mystery is the negation of Common Sense, and Science repels it. According to Mr. Tyndall, metaphysics is fiction, like poetry. The man of Science takes nothing on trust; rejects everything that is not proven to him, while the Theologian accepts everything on blind faith. The Theosophist and the Occultist, who take nothing on trust, not even exact Science, the Spiritualist who denies dogma but believes in Spirits and in invisible but potential influences, all share in the same contempt. Very well, then; what we have to do now, is to examine for the last time whether exact Science does not act precisely in the same way as Theosophy, Spiritualism, and Theology do.
In a work by Mr. S. Laing, considered a standard book on Science, “Modern Science and Modern Thought,” the author of which, according to the laudatory review of the Times, “exhibits with much power and effect the immense discoveries of Science, and its numerous victories over old opinions, whenever they have the rashness to challenge conclusions with it,” one reads in chapter III., “On Matter,” as follows:
“What is the material universe composed of? ETHER, MATTER, ENERGY” . . . . . is the answer.
We stop to ask, “What is Ether?” And Mr. Laing answers in the name of Science: —
“Ether is not actually known to us by any test of which the senses can take cognizance, but is a sort of mathematical substance which we are compelled to assume in order to account for the phenomena of light and heat.”
And [[sic]] what is matter? Do you know more about it than you do about the “hypothetical” agent, Ether?
“In perfect strictness, it is true that chemical investigations can tell us . . . . nothing directly of the composition of living matter, and . . . . it is also in strictness true, that we know nothing about the composition of any (material) body whatever as it is.” (Lecture on Protoplasm by Mr. Huxley.)
And Energy? Surely you can define the third person of the Trinity of your Material universe?
“The Energy is that which is only known to us by its effects.” (Books on Physics.)
Pray explain, for this is rather hazy.
“In mechanics there is actual and potential energy: work actually performed, and the capacity for performing it. As to the nature of molecular Energy or Forces, the various phenomena which bodies present show that their molecules are under the influence of two contrary forces — one which tends to bring them together, the other to separate them. . . . . The first is molecular attraction, the second force is due to vis viva, or moving force.” . . . . (Ganot’s Physics.)
Just so: it is the nature of this moving force, the vis viva that we want to know. What is it? . . . . .
“WE DO NOT KNOW!” is the invariable answer. “It is an empty shadow of my imagination,” explains Mr. Huxley in his Physical Basis of Life.
Thus the whole structure of Modern Science is built on a kind of “mathematical abstraction,” on a Protean “Substance which eludes the senses,” (Dubois Reymond,) and on effects, the shadowy and illusive will-o’-the-wisps of a something entirely unknown to and beyond the reach of Science, “Self-moving” atoms! Self-moving Suns, planets, and stars! But who, then, or what are they all, if they are self-endowed with motion? Why then should you, physicists, laugh and deride our “Self-moving ARCHAEUS“? Mystery is rejected and scorned by Science, and “MYSTERY is the fatality of Science,” as Father Felix has truly said. . . . . Science cannot escape it!” The language of the French preacher is ours, and we quote it in “Isis Unveiled” (Vide Vol. I. 338-9). Who — he asks — who of you, men of Science:
Do the men of science deny all these charges? Not at all, for here is a confession of Tyndall, which shows how powerless is science, even over the world of matter.
How little is known of the material universe, indeed, has now been suspected for years, on the very admissions of these men of science themselves. And now there are some materialists who would even make away with Ether — or whatever Science calls the infinite Substance, the noumenon of which the Buddhists call Swabhavat — as well as with atoms, too dangerous both on account of their ancient philosophical and their present Christian and theological associations. From the earliest philosophers whose records passed to posterity, down to our present age, which, if it denies “invisible Beings” in Space, can never be so insane as to deny a plenum of some sort — the fulness of the universe was an accepted belief. And what it was said to contain, one learns from Hermes Trismegistus (in Mrs. Kingsford’s able rendering) — who is made to say: —
“Concerning the void . . . my judgment is that it does not exist, that it never existed, and that it never will exist, for all the various parts of the universe are filled, as the earth also is complete and full of bodies, differing in quality and in form, having their species and their magnitude, one larger, one smaller, one solid, one tenuous. The larger . . . are easily perceived; the smaller . . . are difficult to apprehend, or altogether invisible. We know only of their existence by the sensation of feeling, wherefore many persons deny such entities to be bodies, and regard them as simply spaces,  but it is impossible there should be such spaces. For if indeed there should be anything outside the universe . . . then it would be a space occupied by intelligent beings analogous to its (the universe’s) divinity . . . . . . I speak of the genii, for I hold they dwell with us, and of the heroes who dwell above us, between the earth and the highest airs; wherein are neither clouds nor any tempest” (p. 84).
And we “hold” it too. Only, as already remarked, no Eastern Initiate would speak of spheres “above us, between the earth and the airs,” even the highest, as there is no such division or measurement in occult speech, no “above” as no “below,” but an eternal “within,” within two other withins, or the planes of subjectivity merging gradually into that of terrestrial objectivity — this being for man the last one, his own plane. This necessary explanation may be closed here by giving, in the words of Hermes, the belief on this particular point of the whole world of mystics: —
This is quite philosophical and in accordance with the spirit of Eastern esotericism: for all the Forces, such as Light, Heat, Electricity, etc., etc., are called the “Gods” — esoterically.
It must be so, since the esoteric teachings in Egypt and India were identical. And, therefore, the personification of Fohat synthesizing all the manifesting forces in nature is a legitimate result. Moreover, as will be shown in the division that follows this one, the real and Occult forces in nature only now begin to be known — and even in this case, by heterodox, not orthodox, Science (See also § X., The Coming Force), though their existence, in one instance at any rate, is corroborated, and certified to by an immense number of educated people and even by some official men of science.
This sentence, moreover, in Stanza VI., “Fohat sets in motion the primordial World-germs, or the aggregation of Cosmic atoms and matter, some one way, some another, in the opposite direction” — looks orthodox and Scientific enough. For there is, at all events, one fact in support of this position fully recognized by Science, and it is this. The meteoric showers (periodical in November and August) belong to a system moving in an elliptical orbit around the Sun. The aphelion of this ring is 1,732 millions of miles beyond the orbit of Neptune, its plane is inclined to the Earth’s orbit at an angle of 64 [[degrees]] 3', and the direction of the meteoric swarm moving round this orbit is contrary to that of the Earth’s revolution.
This fact, recognized only in 1833, shows it to be the modern rediscovery of what was very anciently known. Fohat turns with his two hands in contrary directions the “seed” and “the curds,” or Cosmic matter; is turning, in clearer language, particles in a highly attenuated condition, and nebulae.
Outside the boundaries of the solar system, it is other Suns, and especially the mysterious “central Sun” (the “Abode of the invisible deity” as some reverend gentlemen have called it) that determines the motion of bodies and their direction. That motion serves also to differentiate the homogeneous matter, round and between the several bodies, into elements and sub-elements unknown to our earth, which are regarded by modern Science as distinct individual elements, whereas they are merely temporary appearances, changing with every small cycle within the Manvantara, some Esoteric works calling them “Kalpic Masks.”
Fohat is the key in Occultism which opens and unriddles the multiform symbols and respective allegories in the so-called mythology of every nation; demonstrating the wonderful philosophy and the deep insight into the mysteries of nature, in the Egyptian and Chaldean as well as in the Aryan religions. Fohat, shown in his true character, proves how deeply versed were all those prehistoric nations in every science of nature, now called physical and chemical branches of natural philosophy. In India, Fohat is the scientific aspect of both Vishnu and Indra, the latter older and more important in the Rig Veda than his sectarian successor; while in Egypt Fohat was known as Toum issued of Noot,  or Osiris in his character of a primordial god, creator of heaven and of beings (see chapter xvii., “Book of the Dead”). For Toum is spoken of as the Protean god who generates other gods and gives himself the form he likes; the “master of life” “giving their vigour to the gods” (chapter lxxix.) He is the overseer of the gods, and he “who creates spirits and gives them shape and life”; he is “the north wind and the spirit of the west;” and finally the “Setting Sun of Life,” or the vital electric force that leaves the body at death, wherefore the defunct begs that Toum should give him the breath from his right nostril (positive electricity) that he might live in his second form. Both the hieroglyph, and the text of chapter lxii. in the “Book of the Dead,” show the identity of Toum with Fohat. The former represents a man standing erect with the hieroglyph of the breaths in his hands. The latter says: —
The very words used by Fohat in the XIth Book, and the very titles given him. In the Egyptian Papyri the whole Cosmogony of the Secret Doctrine is found scattered about in isolated sentences, even in the “Book of Dead.” Number seven is quite as much insisted upon and emphasized therein as in the Book of Dzyan. “The Great Water (the Deep or Chaos) is said to be seven cubits deep” — “cubits” standing here of course for divisions, zones, and principles. Therein, “in the great mother, all the Gods, and the seven great ones are born.” (See chapter cviii., 4, Book of the Dead and Egyptian Pantheon). Both Fohat and Toum are addressed as the “Great ones of the Seven Magic Forces,” who, “conquer the Serpent Apap” or Matter.
No student of occultism, however, ought to be betrayed, by the usual phraseology used in the translations of Hermetic Works, into believing that the ancient Egyptians or Greeks spoke of, and referred, monk-like, at every moment in conversation, to a Supreme Being, God, the “One Father and Creator of all,” etc., as found on every page of such translations. No such thing indeed; and those texts are not the original Egyptian texts. They are Greek compilations, the earliest of which does not go beyond the early period of Neo-Platonism. No Hermetic work written by Egyptians (vide “Book of the Dead”) would speak of the one universal God of the Monotheistic systems — the one Absolute cause of all, was as unnameable and unpronounceable in the mind of the ancient philosopher of Egypt, as it is for ever Unknowable in the conception of Mr. Herbert Spencer. As for the Egyptian in general, as M. Maspero well remarks, whenever he “arrived at the notion of divine Unity, the God One was never ‘God,’ simply.” And Lepage Renouf very justly observed that the word Nouter, nouti,” god” had never ceased being a generic name with the Egyptians, nor has it ever become a personal pronoun. Every God was the “one living and unique God” with them. Their “monotheism was purely geographical. If the Egyptian of Memphis proclaimed the unity of Phtah to the exclusion of Ammon, the Thebeian Egyptian proclaimed the unity of Ammon to the exclusion of Phtah,” as we now see done in India in the case of the Saivas and the Vaishnavas. “Ra, the ‘One God’ at Heliopolis is not the same as Osiris, the ‘One God’ at Abydos, and can be worshipped side by side with him, without being absorbed by his neighbour. The one god is but the god of the nome or the city, noutir, noutti, and does not exclude the existence of the one god of that town or of the neighbouring nome. In short, whenever speaking of Egyptian Monotheism, one ought to speak of the Gods ‘One’ of Egypt, and not of the one god” (Maspero, in the Guide au Musee de Boulak.) It is by this feature, pre-eminently Egyptian, that the authenticity of the various so-called Hermetic Books, ought to be tested; and it is totally absent from the Greek fragments known as such. This proves that a Greek Neo-Platonic, or even a Christian hand, had no small share in the editing of such works. Of course the fundamental philosophy is there, and in many a place — intact. But the style has been altered and smoothed in a monotheistic direction, as much, if not more than that of the Hebrew Genesis in its Greek and Latin translations. They may be Hermetic works, but not works written by either of the two Hermes — or rather, by Thot (Hermes) the directing intelligence of the Universe (See ch. xciv., Book of the Dead), or by Thot, his terrestrial incarnation called Trismegistus, of the Rosetta stone.
But all is doubt, negation, iconoclasm and brutal indifference, in our age of the hundred “isms” and no religion. Every idol is broken save the Golden Calf.
Unfortunately, no nation or nations can escape their Karmic fate any more than units and individuals do. History itself is dealt with by the so-called historians as unscrupulously as legendary lore. For this, Augustin Thierry has made the amende honorable, if one may believe his biographers. He deplored the erroneous principle that made them all (the would-be historiographers) lose their way, and each presume to correct tradition, “that vox populi which nine times out of ten is vox Dei;” and he finally admitted that in legend alone rests real history; for “legend,” he adds, “is living tradition, and three times out of four it is truer than what we call History.” 
While Materialists deny everything in the universe, save matter, Archaeologists are trying to dwarf antiquity, and seek to destroy every claim to ancient Wisdom by tampering with Chronology. Our present-day Orientalists and Historical writers are to ancient History that which the white ants are to the buildings in India. More dangerous even than those Termites, the modern Archaeologists — the “authorities” of the future in the matter of Universal History — are preparing for the History of past nations the fate of certain edifices in tropical countries: “History will tumble down and break into atoms in the lap of the twentieth century, devoured to its foundations by her annalists,” said Michelet. Very soon, indeed, under their combined efforts, it will share the fate of those ruined cities in both Americas, which lie deeply buried under impassable virgin forests. Historical facts will remain as concealed from view by the inextricable jungles of modern hypotheses, denials and scepticism. But very happily actual History repeats herself, for she proceeds, like everything else, in cycles; and dead facts and events deliberately drowned in the sea of modern scepticism will ascend once more and reappear on the surface. . . .
In our Book II. the very fact that a work with pretensions to philosophy, and which is an exposition of the most abstruse problems, has to be commenced by tracing the evolution of mankind from what are regarded as supernatural beings — Spirits —will arouse the most malevolent criticism. Believers in, and the defenders of, the Secret Doctrine, however, will have to bear the accusation of madness and worse, asphilosophically as for long years already the writer has done. Whenever a Theosophist is taxed with insanity, he ought to reply by quoting from Montesquieu’s “Lettres Persanes.” “By opening so freely their lunatic asylums to their supposed madmen, men only seek to assure each other that they are not themselves mad.”