{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/secret-doctrine/vol-1-cosmogenesis/35-iii-an-lumen-sit-corpus-nec-non-483.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "vol-1-cosmogenesis",
    "name": "Volume I — Cosmogenesis"
  },
  "parents": [
    {
      "slug": "secret-doctrine",
      "name": "The Secret Doctrine",
      "url": "/sources/secret-doctrine/"
    }
  ],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 33,
    "slug": "35-iii-an-lumen-sit-corpus-nec-non-483",
    "title": "III. AN LUMEN SIT CORPUS NEC NON? ... 483",
    "of": 48,
    "words": 3284,
    "text": "## III. AN LUMEN SIT CORPUS NEC NON? ... 483\n\n\nThe Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, vol 1, bk 3, ch 3\n\n###### The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol.\n1\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 483 NO AGREEMENT AMONG SCIENTISTS.\n\n[[This page continued from previous section]]\n\n##### III.\n\"AN LUMEN SIT CORPUS, NEC NON?\"\n\n**M**OST decidedly Light is not a body, we are told.\nPhysical Sciences say Light is a Force, a vibration, the undulation\nof ether. It is the property or quality of matter, or even an\naffection thereof -- never *a body!*\n\nJust so. For this discovery, the knowledge -- whatever it may\nbe worth -- that light or caloric is not a motion of *material\nparticles*,* *Science is chiefly indebted, if not solely,\nto Sir W. Grove. It was he who was the first in a lecture at the\nLondon Institution, in 1842, to show that\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 484 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n\"light, heat, etc., etc.* are *affections *of matter\nitself, and not a distinct ethereal, 'imponderable,' fluid, (a\nstate of matter *now*) permeating it.\" (*See *\"*Correlation\nof the Physical Forces*,\"* Preface*)*. *Yet,\nperhaps, for some physicists -- as for Oersted, a very eminent\nScientist -- **F**ORCE and **F**ORCES\nwere tacitly \"Spirit (*and hence Spirits*)* in\nNature.*\"* *What several rather mystical Scientists\ntaught was that light, heat, magnetism, electricity and gravity,\netc., were not the final *causes *of the visible phenomena,\nincluding planetary motion, but themselves the Secondary *effects\nof other Causes*,* *for which Science in our day cares\nvery little, but in which Occultism believes, for the Occultists\nhave exhibited proofs of the validity of their claims in every\nage. And in what age were there no *Occultists *and no\n**A**DEPTS?\n\nSir Isaac Newton held to the Pythagorean corpuscular theory, and\nwas also inclined to admit its consequences; which made the Count\nde Maistre hope, at one time, that Newton would ultimately lead\nScience back to the recognition of the fact that *Forces *and\nthe Celestial bodies *were propelled and guided by Intelligences\n*(*Soirees*,* *vol. ii.). But de Maistre counted\nwithout his host. The innermost thoughts and ideas of Newton were\nperverted, and of his great mathematical learning only the mere\nphysical husk was turned to account. Had poor Sir Isaac foreseen\nto what use his successors and followers would apply his \"\ngravity,\"** that pious and religious man would surely have\nquietly eaten his apple, and never breathed a word about any mechanical\nideas connected with its fall.\n\nGreat contempt is shown for metaphysics generally and for onto-\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Mr. Robert Ward, discussing the questions of Heat and Light\nin the November *Journal of Science*,* *1881, shows\nus how utterly ignorant is Science about one of the commonest\nfacts of nature -- the heat of the sun. He says: -- \"The\nquestion of the temperature of the sun has been the subject of\ninvestigation with many scientists: Newton, one of the first investigators\nof this problem, tried to determine it, and after him all the\nscientists who have been occupied with calorimetry have followed\nhis example. *All have believed themselves successful*,*\n*and have formulated their results with great confidence.\nThe following, in the chronological order of the publication of\nthe results, are the temperatures (in centigrade degrees) found\nby each of them: Newton, 1,699,300 deg.; Pouillet, 1,461 deg.;\nTollner, 102,200 deg.; Secchi, 5,344,840 deg.; Ericsson, 2,726,700\ndeg.; Fizeau, 7,500 deg.; Waterston, 9,000,000 deg.; Spoeren,\n27,000 deg.; Deville, 9,500 deg.; Soret, 5,801,846 deg.; Vicaire,\n1,500 deg.; Rosetti, 20,000 deg. The difference is as 1,400 deg.\nagainst 9,000,000 deg., or no less than 8,998,600 deg.!! There\nprobably does not exist in science a more astonishing contradiction\nthan that revealed in these figures. And yet without doubt if\nan *Occultist *were to give out an estimate, each of these\ngentlemen would vehemently protest in the name of '**E**XACT'\nScience at the rejection of his special result.\" (From the\n*Theosophist.*)\n\n** According to one atheistic idealist -- Dr. Lewins -- \"When\nSir Isaac, in 1687 . . . . showed mass and atom acted upon . .\n. . by innate activity . . . . he effectually disposed of Spirit,\nAnima, or Divinity, as supererogatory.\"\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 485 THE METAPHYSICS OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE.\n\nlogical metaphysics especially. But we see, whenever the Occultists\nare bold enough to raise their diminished heads, that materialistic,\nphysical science is honey-combed with metaphysics;* that its most\nfundamental principles, while inseparably wedded to transcendentalism,\nare nevertheless, in order to show modern science divorced from\nsuch \"dreams,\" tortured and often ignored in the maze\nof contradictory theories and hypotheses. A very good corroboration\nof this charge lies in the fact that Science finds itself absolutely\ncompelled to accept the \"hypothetical\" Ether and to\ntry to explain it on the materialistic grounds of atomo-mechanical\nlaws. This attempt has led directly to the most fatal discrepancies\nand radical inconsistencies between the assumed nature of Ether\nand its physical actions. A second proof is found in the many\ncontradictory statements about the atom -- the most metaphysical\nobject in creation.\n\nNow, what does the modern science of physics know of AEther, the\nfirst concept of which belongs undeniably to ancient philosophers,\nthe Greeks having borrowed it from the Aryans, and the origin\nof modern AEther being found in, and *disfigured *from,\n**A**KASA? This disfigurement\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Stallo's above-cited work, \"Concepts of Modern Physics,\"\na volume which has called forth the liveliest protests and criticisms,\nis recommended to anyone inclined to doubt this statement. \"The\nprofessed antagonism of Science to metaphysics,\" he writes,\n\"has led the majority of scientific specialists to assume\nthat the methods and results of empirical research are wholly\nindependent of the control of the laws of thought. They either\nsilently ignore, or openly repudiate, the simplest canons of logic,\nincluding the laws of non-contradiction and . . . resent with\nthe utmost vehemence, every application of the rule of consistency\nto their hypotheses and theories . . . . and they regard an examination\n(of these) . . . . in the light of these laws as an impertinent\nintrusion of '*a* *priori *principles and methods'\ninto the domains of empirical science. Persons of this cast of\nmind find no difficulty in holding that atoms are absolutely inert,\nand at the same time asserting that these atoms are perfectly\nelastic; or in maintaining that the physical universe, in its\nlast analysis, resolves itself into 'dead' matter and motion,\nand yet denying that all physical energy is in reality kinetic;\nor in proclaiming that all phenomenal differences in the objective\nworld are ultimately due to the various motions of absolutely\nsimple material units, and, nevertheless, repudiating the proposition\nthat these units are equal\" . . . . (p. xix.) \"The blindness\nof eminent physicists to some of the most obvious consequences\nof their own theories is marvellous . . . . When Prof. Tait, in\nconjunction with Prof. Stewart, announces that 'matter is simply\npassive' (*The Unseen Universe*,* *sec. 104), and\nthen, in connection with Sir W. Thomson, declares that 'matter\nhas an innate power of resisting external influences' (*Treat.\non Nat. Phil.*,* *Vol. I., sec. 216), it is hardly\nimpertinent to inquire how these statements are to be reconciled.\nWhen Prof. Du Bois Reymond . . . . insists upon the necessity\nof reducing all the processes of nature to motions of a substantial,\nindifferent substratum, *wholly destitute of quality *('*Ueber\ndie Grenzen des Naturerkennens*,'* *p. 5), having declared\nshortly before in the same lecture that 'resolution of all changes\nin the material world into motions of atoms *caused by their\nconstant central forces *would be the completion of natural\nscience,' we are in a perplexity from which we have to be relieved.\"\n(Pref. xliii.)\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 486 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nis claimed to be a modification and refinement of the idea of\nLucretius. Let us then examine the modern concept from several\nscientific volumes containing the admissions of the physicists\nthemselves.\n\nThe existence of Ether is accepted by physical astronomy, in ordinary\nphysics, and in chemistry. Astronomers, who first began by regarding\nit as a fluid of extreme tenuity and mobility, offering no sensible\nresistance to the motions of celestial bodies, never gave a thought\nto its continuity or discontinuity. \"Its main function in\nmodern astronomy has been to serve as a basis for hydrodynamical\ntheories of gravitation. In physics this fluid appeared for some\ntime in several *roles *in connection with the 'imponderables'\"\n-- so cruelly put to death by Sir W. Grove. Some physicists have\neven identified the ether of space with those \"imponderables.\"\nThen came their Kinetic theories; and from the date of the dynamical\ntheory of heat, it was chosen in optics as a substratum for luminous\nundulations. Then, in order to explain the dispersion and polarization\nof light, physicists had to resort once more to their \"scientific\nimagination\" and forthwith endowed the Ether with (*a*)\natomic or molecular structure, and (*b*) with an enormous\nelasticity, \"so that its resistance to deformation far exceeded\nthat of the most rigid elastic bodies\" (*Stallo*)*.\n*This necessitated the *theory of the essential discontinuity\nof matter*,* *hence of Ether. After having accepted\nthis discontinuity, in order to account for dispersion and polarization,\ntheoretical impossibilities were discovered with regard to such\ndispersions. Cauchy's \"scientific imagination\" saw in\natoms \"material points without extension,\" and he proposed,\nin order to obviate the most formidable obstacles to the undulatory\ntheory (namely, some well-known mechanical theorems which stood\nin the way), to assume that the ethereal medium of propagation,\ninstead of being continuous, should consist of particles separated\nby sensible distances. Fresnel rendered the same service to the\nphenomena of polarization. E. B. Hunt upset the theories of both\n(*Silliman*'*s Journal*,* *vol. viii., p.\n364 *et seq.*)* *There are now men of Science who\nproclaim them \"materially fallacious,\" while others\n-- the \"atomo-mechanicalists\" -- cling to to them with\ndesperate tenacity. The supposition of an *atomic *or*\nmolecular constitution *of ether is upset, moreover, by thermodynamics,\nfor Clerk Maxwell showed that such a medium would be simply *gas.*\n*The hypothesis of \"finite intervals\" is thus proven\nof no avail as a supplement to the undulatory theory. Besides,\neclipses fail to reveal any such variation of colour as supposed\nby Cauchy (on the assumption that the chromatic rays are propagated\nwith different velocities).\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n*See Clerk Maxwell's \"Treatise on Electricity of Magnetism\"\nand compare with Cauchy's \"*Memoire sur la Dispersion\nde la lumiere.*\"\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 487 SCIENTIFIC IMAGINATION.\n\nAstronomy has pointed out more than one phenomenon absolutely\nat variance with this doctrine.\n\nThus, while in one department of physics the atomo-molecular constitution\nof the ether is accepted in order to account for one set of special\nphenomena, in another department such a constitution is found\nquite subversive of a number of well-ascertained facts, Hirn's\ncharges being thus justified (*vide supra*)*. *Chemistry\ndeemed it impossible to concede enormous elasticity to the *ether*\nwithout depriving it of other properties, upon the assumption\nof which the construction of *its *modern theories depended.\nThis ended in a final transformation of ether. The exigencies\nof the atomo-mechanical theory have led distinguished mathematicians\nand physicists to attempt to substitute for the traditional atoms\nof matter, peculiar forms of *vortical motion *in a \"universal\nhomogeneous, incompressible, and *continuous *material\nmedium,\" or AEther. (*See Stallo.*)\n\nThe present writer, claiming no great scientific education, but\nonly a tolerable acquaintance with modern theories, and a better\none with Occult Sciences, picks up weapons against the detractors\nof the esoteric teaching in the very arsenal of modern Science.\nThe glaring contradictions, the mutually-destructive hypotheses\nof world-renowned Scientists, their mutual accusations, denunciations\nand disputes, show plainly that, whether accepted or not, the\nOccult theories have as much right to a hearing as any of the\nso-called learned and academical hypotheses. Thus whether the\nfollowers of the Royal Society choose to accept ether as a *continuous\n*or a *discontinuous *fluid matters little, and is\nindifferent to the present purpose. It simply points to one certainty:\nOfficial Science *knows nothing to this day of the constitution\nof ether. *Let Science call it matter, if it likes; only neither\nas *akasa *nor as the one sacred AEther of the Greeks,\nis it to be found in any of the states of matter known to modern\nphysics. It is MATTER on quite another plane of perception and\nbeing, and it can neither be analyzed by scientific apparatus,\nappreciated, nor even conceived by \"scientific imagination,\"\nunless the possessors thereof study the Occult Sciences. That\nwhich follows proves this statement.\n\nIt is clearly demonstrated by Stallo as regards the crucial problems\nof modern physics (as was done by De Quatrefages and several others\nin those of anthropology, biology, etc., etc.) that, in their\nefforts to support their individual hypotheses and systems, the\nmajority of the eminent and learned materialists very often utter\nthe greatest fallacies. Let us take the following case. Most of\nthem reject *actio in distans *(one* *of the fundamental\nprinciples in the question of AEther or Akasa in Occultism), while,\nas Stallo justly observes, there is no physical action,\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 488 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n\"which, on close examination, does not resolve itself into\n*actio in distans*\"; and he proves it.\n\nNow, metaphysical arguments, according to Professor Lodge (*Nature*,*\nvol. xxvii.*,* p. *304), are \"unconscious appeals\nto experience.\" And he adds that if such an experience *is\nnot conceivable*,* *then it does not exist, etc. In\nhis own words: -- \". . . If a highly-developed mind or set\nof minds, find a doctrine about some comparatively simple and\nfundamental matter *absolutely unthinkable*,* *it\nis an evidence . . . that *the unthinkable state of things\nhas no existence*,* etc.\"*\n\nAnd thereupon, toward the end of his lecture, Professor Lodge\nindicates that the explanation of cohesion, as well as of gravity,\n\"is to be looked for in the vortex-atom theory of Sir William\nThomson\" (Stallo).\n\nIt is needless to stop to inquire whether it is to this vortex-theory,\nalso, that we have to look for the dropping down on earth of the\nfirst life-germ by a passing meteor or comet (Sir W. Thomson's\nhypothesis). But Mr. Lodge might be reminded of the wise criticism\non his lecture in the same \"Concepts of Modern Physics.\"\nNoticing the above-quoted declaration by the London Professor,\nthe author asks \"whether . . . the elements of the vortex-theory\nare *familiar*,* *or even possible, facts of experience?\nFor, if they are not, *clearly that theory is obnoxious to\nthe same criticism which is said to invalidate the assumption\n*of ACTIO IN DISTANS\" (p. xxiv). And then the able critic\nshows clearly what the Ether *is not*,* *nor can\never be, notwithstanding all scientific claims to the contrary.\nAnd thus he opens widely, if unconsciously, the entrance door\nto our occult teachings. For, as he says: --\n\n\"The medium in which the vortex-movements arise is, according\nto Professor Lodge's own express statement (NATURE, vol. xxvii.,\np. 305), 'a perfectly homogeneous, incompressible, continuous\nbody, incapable of being resolved into simple elements or atoms:\nit is, in fact, continuous, not molecular.' And after making this\nstatement Professor Lodge adds: '*There is no other body of\nwhich we can say this*,* and hence the Properties of the\naether must be somewhat *DIFFERENT* from those of ordinary\nmatter*.' It appears, then, that the whole vortex-atom theory,\nwhich is offered to us as a substitute for the 'metaphysical theory'\n*of actio in distans*,* *rests upon the hypothesis of\nthe existence of a material medium which is utterly *unknown\nto experience*,* *and which has properties *somewhat\n*different* from those of ordinary matter. Hence this theory,\ninstead of being, as is claimed, a reduction of an unfamiliar\nfact of *experience *to a familiar fact, is,\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n** *\"*Somewhat *different!\" exclaims Stallo.\n\"The real import of this 'somewhat' is, that the medium in\nquestion *is not*,* in any intelligible sense*,*\nmaterial at all*,* *having none of the properties of\nmatter.\" All the properties of matter depend upon differences\nand changes, and the \"hypothetical\" aether here defined\nis not only destitute of differences, but incapable of difference\nand change -- (in the physical sense let us add). This proves\nthat if aether is \"matter\" *it is so *only as\nsomething visible, tangible and existing, for *spiritual *senses\nalone; that it is a Being indeed -- but not of our plane: Pater\nAEther, or Akasa.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 489 THE PHYSICAL \"PHANTOM.\"\n\non the contrary, a reduction of a fact which is perfectly familiar,\nto a fact which is not only unfamiliar, but wholly unknown, unobserved\nand unobservable. Furthermore, the alleged vortical motion of,\nor rather in, the assumed ethereal medium is . . . impossible,\nbecause \"motion in a perfectly homogeneous, incompressible,\nand therefore continuous fluid, is not sensible motion.\"\n. . . . It is manifest, therefore, that wherever the vortex-atom\ntheory may lead us, it certainly *does not lead us anywhere\nin the region of physics*,* *or in the domain of *verae*\n*causae.* *And I may add that, inasmuch as the hypothetical\nundifferentiated** and undifferentiable medium is clearly an involuntary\nre-ification of the old ontological concept *pure being*,*\n*the theory under discussion has all the attributes of an *inapprehensible\nmetaphysical phantom.*\"\n\nA \"phantom\" indeed, which can be made apprehensible\nonly by Occultism. From such scientific metaphysics to Occultism\nthere is hardly one step. Those physicists who hold the view that\nthe atomic constitution of matter is consistent with its penetrability,\nneed not go far out of their way to be able to account for the\ngreatest phenomena of Occultism, now so derided by physical scientists\nand materialists. Cauchy's \"material points without extension\"\nare Leibnitz's monads, and at the same time the materials out\nof which the \"Gods\" and other invisible powers clothe\nthemselves in bodies (*vide infra*,* *\"*Gods*,*\nMonads and Atoms*\")*. *The disintegration and\nreintegration of \"material\" particles without extension\nas a chief factor in phenomenal manifestations ought to suggest\nthemselves very easily as a *clear possibility*,* *at\nany rate to those few scientific minds which accept M. Cauchy's\nviews. For, disposing of that property of matter which they call\nimpenetrability by simply regarding the atoms as \"material\npoints exerting on each other attractions and repulsions which\nvary with the distances that separate them\" -- the French\ntheorist explains that: \"From this it follows that, if it\npleased the author of nature*** simply to *modify *the\nlaws according to which the atoms attract or repel each other,\n*we might instantly see the hardest bodies penetrating each\nother*,* *the smallest particles of matter *occupying\nimmense spaces*,* *or* *the largest masses reducing\nthemselves to the smallest volumes, the entire universe concentrating\nitself, as it were, in a single point.\" (*Sept lecons\nde physique Generale*,* *p. 38 *et seq.*,*\n*ed. Moigno.)\n\nAnd that \"point,\" *invisible on our plane of perception\nand matter*,* *is* *quite visible to the eye\nof the adept who can follow and see it present on other planes.\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n** Verae causae *for physical science are *mayavic *or\nillusionary causes to the Occultist, and *vice versa.*\n\n** Very much \"differentiated,\" on the contrary, since\nthe day it left its *laya* condition.\n\n*** For the Occultists who say that the author of nature *is\nnature itself*,* *something indistinct and inseparable\nfrom the Deity, it follows that those who are conversant with\nthe *occult laws *of nature, and know how to change and\nprovoke new conditions in ether, may -- *not* modify the\nlaws, but work and do the same *in accordance with *those\n*immutable *laws.\n\nNext Section\n\nContents",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}