{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/secret-doctrine/vol-1-cosmogenesis/38-vi-the-masks-of-science-506.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "vol-1-cosmogenesis",
    "name": "Volume I — Cosmogenesis"
  },
  "parents": [
    {
      "slug": "secret-doctrine",
      "name": "The Secret Doctrine",
      "url": "/sources/secret-doctrine/"
    }
  ],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 36,
    "slug": "38-vi-the-masks-of-science-506",
    "title": "VI. THE MASKS OF SCIENCE ... 506",
    "of": 48,
    "words": 8716,
    "text": "## VI. THE MASKS OF SCIENCE ... 506\n\n\nThe Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, vol 1, bk 3, ch 6\n\n###### The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol.\n1\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 506 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n[[This page continued from previous section]]\n\n##### VI.\nTHE MASKS OF SCIENCE.\n\nPHYSICS OR METAPHYSICS?\n\n**I**F there is anything on earth like progress,\nScience will some day have to give up, *nolens volens*,*\n*such monstrous ideas as her physical, self-guiding *laws*\n--* *void of soul and Spirit, -- and then turn to the occult\nteachings.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 507 ACADEMICAL MISNOMERS.\n\nIt has done so already, however altered are the title-page and\nrevised editions of the Scientific Catechism. It is now over half\na century since, in comparing modern with ancient thought, it\nhas been found that, however different our philosophy may appear\nfrom that of our ancestors, it is, nevertheless, composed only\n*of additions *and* subtractions *taken from the\nold philosophy and *transmitted drop by drop through the filter\nof antecedents.*\n\nThis fact was well known to Faraday, and other eminent men of\nScience. Atoms, Ether, evolution itself -- all comes to modern\nScience from ancient notions, all is based on the conceptions\nof the archaic nations. \"Conceptions\" for the profane,\nunder the shape of allegories; plain truths taught during the\nInitiations to the elect, which truths have been partially divulged\nthrough Greek writers and have descended to us. This does not\nmean that Occultism has ever had the same views on matter, atoms\nand ether as found in the exotericism of the classical Greek writers.\nYet, if we believe Mr. Tyndall, even Faraday was an Aristotelean,\nand an Agnostic more than a materialist. In his \"Faraday,\nas a Discoverer\" (p. 123) the author shows the great physicist\n*using *\"old reflections of Aristotle\" which\nare \"concisely found in some of his works.\" Faraday,\nBoscovitch, and all others, however, who see, in the atoms and\nmolecules, \"centres of force,\" and in the corresponding\n*element force*,* *an ENTITY BY ITSELF, are far\nnearer the truth, perchance, than those, who, denouncing them,\ndenounce at the same time the \"old corpuscular Pythagorean\ntheory\" (one, by the way, which has never passed to posterity\nas the great philosopher *really *taught it), on the ground\nof its \"delusion that the conceptual elements of matter *can\nbe grasped *as separate and real entities.\"\n\nThe chief and most fatal mistake and fallacy made by Science,\nin the view of the Occultists, lies in the idea of the possibility\nof such a thing as inorganic, or *dead *matter, in nature.\nIs anything *dead* or* inorganic *capable of transformation\nor change? Occultism asks. And is there anything under the sun\nwhich remains immutable or changeless?\n\nThis fallacy is nowhere better illustrated than in the scientific\nwork of a German *savant*,* *Professor Philip Spiller\n(*Der Weltaether als Kosmische Kraft*)*. *In this\ncosmological treatise, the author attempts to prove that \"no\nmaterial constituent of a body, no atom, *is in itself originally\nendowed with force*,* *but that every such atom *is\nabsolutely dead*,** *and without any power to act at\na distance\" (p. 4).\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Something *dead* implies that it had been at some time\n*living. *When, at what period of cosmogony? Occultism says\nthat in all cases when matter *appears *inert, it is the\nmost active. A wooden or a stone block is motionless and impenetrable\nto all intents and purposes. Nevertheless, and *de facto*,*\n*its particles are in ceaseless eternal vibration which is\nso rapid that to the physical eye the body seems absolutely devoid\nof motion; [[Footnote continued on next page]]\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 508 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nThis statement, however, does not prevent Spiller from enunciating\nan occult doctrine and principle. He asserts *the independent\nsubstantiality of force*,* *and shows it as an \"incorporeal\nstuff\" (*unkoerperlicher stoff*) or substance. Now\n*substance *is not *matter *in metaphysics, and\nfor argument's sake it may be granted that it is a wrong expression\nto use. But this is due to the poverty of European languages,\nand especially to that of scientific terms. Then this \"stuff\"\nis identified and connected by Spiller with the aether. Expressed\nin occult language it might be said with more correctness that\nthis \"force-substance\" is the ever-active phenomenal\n*positive *aether -- *prakriti; *while the omnipresent\nall pervading ether is the *noumenon *of the former, the\nsubstratum of all, or *Akasa. *Nevertheless, Stallo falls\nfoul of Spiller, as he does of the materialists. He is accused\nof \"utter disregard of the fundamental correlation of force\nand matter\" (of neither of which Science knows anything certain).\nFor this \"hypostasized half-concept\" is, in the view\nof all other physicists, not only *imponderable*,* *but\ndestitute of cohesive, chemical, thermal, electric, and magnetic\nforces -- of all of which forces -- according to occultism --\naether is the source and *cause.*\n\nTherefore Spiller, with all his mistakes, exhibits more intuition\nthan any other modern Scientist, with the exception of Dr. Richardson,\nperhaps, the theorist on the \"nerve force,\" or Nervous\nEther, also on \"Sun Force and Earth Force.\"* For **AE**THER,\nin Esotericism, is the very quintessence of all possible energy,\nand it is certainly to this universal agent (composed of many\n*agents*)* *that all the manifestations of energy\nin the material, psychic and spiritual worlds are due.\n\nWhat are Electricity and Light, in fact? How can Science know\nthat one is a fluid and the other a \"mode of motion\"?\nWhy is it not made clear why a difference should be made between\nthem, since both are considered force-correlations. Electricity\nis a fluid, we are told, immaterial and non-molecular (though\nHelmholtz thinks otherwise), and the proof of it is that we can\nbottle it up, accumulate and store it away. Then, *it must\n*be simply matter, and no peculiar \"fluid.\" Nor\nis it only \"a mode of motion,\" for motion could hardly\nbe stored in a Leyden jar. As for light, it is a still more extraordinary\n\"mode of motion;\" since, \"marvellous as it may\nappear, light (also) can *actually be stored up for use*,\"\nas demonstrated by Professor Grove nearly half a century ago.\n\n\"Take an engraving which has been kept for some days in the\ndark, expose it to full sunshine -- that is, insulate it for 15\nminutes; lay it on\n\n[[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n[[Footnote continued from previous page]] and the spacial distance\nbetween those particles in their vibratory motion is -- considered\nfrom another plane of being and perception -- as great as that\nwhich separates snow flakes or drops of rain. But to physical\nscience this will be an absurdity.\n\n* See \"Popular Science Review,\" Vol. V., pp. 329-34.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 509 THE FIXING OF LIGHT.\n\nsensitive paper in a dark place, and at the end of 24 hours it\nwill have left an impression of itself on the sensitive paper,\nthe whites coming out as blacks. . . . There seems to be no limit\nfor the reproduction of engravings, etc., etc. . . . .\"\n\nWhat is it that remains fixed, nailed, so to say, on the paper?\nIt is a* Force *certainly, that fixed the thing, but what\nis *that thing*,* *the residue of which remains\non the paper?\n\nOur learned men will get out of this through some scientific technicality;\nbut what is it that is intercepted, so as to imprison a certain\nquantity of it on glass, paper, or wood? Is it \"Motion\"\nor is it \"Force\"? Or shall we be told that what remains\nbehind is the effect only of the force or Motion? Then what is\nthis Force? Force or energy is a quality; but every quality must\nbelong to a something, or a somebody. In Physics, Force is defined\nas \"that which changes or tends to change any physical relation\nbetween bodies, whether mechanical, thermal, chemical, electrical,\nmagnetic, etc.\" But it is not that \"Force\" or that\n\"Motion\" which remains behind on the paper, when the\nForce or Motion has ceased to act; and yet something, which our\nphysical senses cannot perceive, has been left there to become\na cause in its turn and produce effects. What is it? It is not\nmatter, as defined by Science -- *i.e.*, matter in any\nof its known states. An Alchemist would say it was a spiritual\nsecretion -- and would be laughed at. But yet, when the physicist\nsaid that Electricity, stored up, was a fluid, or that light fixed\non paper is still Sunlight -- this is Science.* In the opinion\nof an experienced Occultist, one who has verified the whole series\nof *Nidanas*,* *of causes and effects that finally\nproject their last effect on to this our plane of manifestations;\none who has traced matter back to its noumenon, the explanation\nof the physicist is like calling anger, or its effects -- the\nexclamation provoked by it -- a secretion or a fluid, and man,\nthe cause of it -- its* material *conductor. But, as Grove\nprophetically remarked, that day is fast approaching when it will\nbe confessed that the \"forces\" *we* know of are\nbut the phenomenal manifestations of realities we know nothing\nabout, -- but which *were known to the ancients and *--*\nby them worshipped.*\n\nHe made one still more suggestive remark, however, which ought\nto have become the motto of Science, but has not. Sir W. Grove\nsaid that \"**S**CIENCE SHOULD HAVE NEITHER DESIRES\nNOR PREJUDICES. **T**RUTH SHOULD BE HER SOLE AIM.\"\n\nMeanwhile, in our days, Scientists are more self-opinionated and\nbigoted than even the clergy. For they minister to, if they do\nnot actually worship,\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* The newest Authorities have rejected these explanations as \"exploded\ntheories,\" and have now deified \"Motion\" as their\nsole Idol. But, surely, they and their idol will one day share\nthe fate of their predecessors.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 510 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n\"Force-Matter,\" which is their *Unknown God. *And\nhow unknown it is may be inferred from the many confessions of\nthe most eminent physicists and biologists, with Faraday at their\nhead. Not only, he said, could he never presume to pronounce whether\nForce was a property or function of Matter, but he actually did\nnot know what was meant by the word *matter.*\n\nThere was a time, he added, when he believed he knew something\nof matter. But the more he lived, and the more carefully he studied\nit, the more he became convinced *of his utter ignorance of\nthe nature of matter.* *(See Buckwell's \"Electric Science.\")\n\nThe Occultists are often misunderstood because, for lack of better\nterms, they apply to the essence of Force *under certain aspects\n*the descriptive epithet of *substance. *Now the names\nfor the varieties of \"substance\" on different planes\nof perception and being are *legion. *Eastern Occultism\nhas a special appellation for each kind; but Science -- like England,\nin the recollection of a witty Frenchman, blessed with thirty-six\nreligions and only one fish-sauce -- has but one name for all,\nnamely, \"Substance.\" Moreover, neither the orthodox\nphysicists nor their critics seem to be very certain of their\npremises, and are as apt to confuse the effects as they do the\ncauses. It is incorrect, for instance, to say, as Stallo does,\nthat \"matter can no more be realized or conceived as mere\nspacial presence than as a concretion of forces,\" or that\n\"force is nothing without mass, and mass is nothing without\nforce\" -- for one is the noumenon and the other the phenomenon.\nAgain; Schelling, when saying that \"It is a mere delusion\nof the phantasy that something, we know not what, remains after\nwe have denuded an object of all the predicates belonging to it\"**\n-- could never have applied the remark to the realm of transcendental\nmetaphysics. It is true that pure force is *nothing *in\nthe world of physics; it is ALL in the domain of Spirit. Says\nStallo: \"If we reduce the mass upon which a given force,\nhowever small, acts to its limit zero -- or, mathematically expressed,\nuntil it becomes infinitely small -- the consequence is that the\nvelocity of the resulting motion is infinitely great, and that\nthe 'thing' . . . is at any given moment neither here nor there,\nbut everywhere -- that there is no\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* This ominous confession was made, we believe, at a Scientific\nCongress at Swansea. Faraday held a similar opinion, however,\nas stated by Tyndall: \"What do we know of the atom *apart\nfrom its *force? You imagine a nucleus which may be called\n*a* and surround it by forces which may be called *m*;\nto my mind the *a* or nucleus vanishes and the substance\nconsists of the powers *m*. And, indeed, what notion can\nwe form of the nucleus independent of its powers? What thought\nremains on which to hang the imagination of an *a *independent\nof the acknowledged forces?\"\n\n** Schelling, \"Ideen,\" etc., p. 18.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 511 WHAT IS FORCE?\n\nreal presence; it is impossible, therefore, to construct matter\nby a synthesis of forces\" (p. 161).\n\nThis may be true in the phenomenal world, inasmuch as the illusive\nreflection of the *one reality *of the supersensual world\nmay appear true to the dwarfed conceptions of a materialist. It\nis absolutely incorrect when the argument is applied to things,\nin what the Kabalists call the supermundane spheres. Inertia,\nso called, \"is force\" according to Newton (*Princ.\nDef. iii.*),* *and for the student of Esoteric Sciences\nthe greatest of the occult forces. A body may be considered divorced\nfrom its relations with other bodies -- which, according to physical\nand mechanical sciences, give rise to its attributes -- only *conceptually*,*\n*only on this plane of illusion. In fact, it can never be\nso detached: death itself being unable to detach it from its relation\nwith the Universal forces, of which the one **F**ORCE\nor **L**IFE is the synthesis: but simply continues\nsuch inter-relation on another plane. But what, if Stallo is right,\ncan Dr. James Croll mean when, in speaking \"On the Transformation\nof Gravity\" (*Philosophical Magazine*,* *Vol*.\n*II., p. 252), he brings forward the views advocated by Faraday,\nWaterston, and others? For he says very plainly that gravity --\n\n\". . . . . is a force pervading Space *external to bodies*,*\n*and that, on the mutual approach of the bodies, the force\nis not increased, as is generally supposed, but the bodies merely\npass into a place *where the force exists with greater intensity*.\n. . . .\"\n\nNo one will deny that a force (whether gravity, electricity, or\nany other force) which exists *outside *of the bodies and\nin open space -- be it ether or vacuum -- must be *something*,*\n*and not a pure *nothing*,* *when conceived\napart from a mass? Otherwise it could hardly exist in one place\nwith a *greater *and in another with reduced \"intensity.\"\nG. A. Hirn declares the same in his *Theorie Mecanique de l*'*Univers.\n*He tries to demonstrate that the atom of the chemists is\nnot an entity of pure convention, or simply an explicative device,\nbut that it exists really, that its volume is unalterable, and\nthat consequently it is *not *elastic (!!). \"Force,\ntherefore, *is not in the atom; it is in the space which separates\nthe atoms from each other.*\"\n\nThe above-cited views, expressed by two men of Science of great\neminence in their respective countries, show that it is not in\nthe least *unscientific *to speak of the substantiality\nof the so-called *Forces. *Subject to some future specific\nname, this force is *substance *of some kind, and can be\nnothing else; and perhaps one day Science will be the first to\nre-adopt the derided name of phlogiston. Whatever may be the future\nname given to it, to maintain that force does *not *reside\nin the atoms, but only in \"space between them,\" may\nbe scientific enough; nevertheless it is not true. To the mind\nof an Occultist it is like saying\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 512 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nthat water does not reside in the drops of which the ocean is\ncomposed, but only in the space between those drops!\n\nThe objection made that there are two distinct schools of physicists,\nby one of which \"the force is assumed to be an *independent\nsubstantial entity*,* *which is NOT a property of matter\nnor is it essentially related to matter,\"* is hardly likely\nto help the profane to any clearer understanding. It is, on the\ncontrary, still more calculated to throw the question into greater\nconfusion than ever. For Force is, then, neither this nor the\nother. By viewing it as \"an independent substantial entity,\"\nthe theory extends the right hand of fellowship to Occultism,\nwhile the strange contradictory idea that it is not related to\nmatter \"otherwise than by its power to act upon it,\"**\nleads physical science to the most absurd contradictory hypotheses.\nWhether \"force\" or \"motion,\" (Occultism, seeing\nno difference between the two, never attempts to separate them)\nit cannot act for the adherents of the atomo-mechanical theory\none way, and for those of the rival school in another way. Nor\ncan the atoms be, in one case, *absolutely uniform in size\nand weight*,* *and in another, vary in their weight\n(Avogadro's law). For, in the words of the same able critic,\n\n. . . \"While the absolute equality of the primordial units\nof mass is thus an essential part of the very foundations of the\nmechanical theory, the whole modern Science of chemistry is based\n*upon a principle directly subversive of it *-- a principle\nof which it has recently been said that 'it holds the same place\nin chemistry that the law of gravitation does in astronomy.'***\nThis principle is known as the law of Avogadro or Ampere.\"****\n\nThis shows that either modern chemistry or modern physics is entirely\nwrong in its respective fundamental principles. For if the assumption\nof atoms of different specific gravities on the basis of the atomic\ntheory in physics is deemed absurd, and chemistry meets, nevertheless,\non its opposite basis (in the question of the formation and transformation\nof chemical compounds) with \"*unfailing *experimental\nverification,\"\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* \"Concepts of Modern Physics,\" xxxi., Introductory\nto the 2nd edition.\n\n*** Loc. cit.*\n\n*** J. P. Cooke, *The New Chemistry*,* *p. 13.\n\n**** \"It imports that equal volumes of all substances, when\nin the gaseous state, and under like conditions of pressure and\ntemperature, contain the same number of molecules -- whence it\nfollows that the weights of the molecules are proportional to\nthe specific gravities of the gases; that therefore, these being\ndifferent, the weights of the molecules are different also; and\ninasmuch as the molecules of certain elementary substances are\n*monatomic *(consist of but one atom each) while the molecules\nof various other substances contain the same number of atoms,\nthat the ultimate atoms of such substances are of different weights\"\n(*Concepts of Modern Physics*,* *p. 34). As shown\nfurther on in the same volume, this cardinal principle of modern\ntheoretical chemistry *is in utter and irreconcilable conflict\nwith the first proposition of the atomo-mechanical theory *--*\n*namely, the absolute equality of the primordial units of\nmass.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 513 THEY AGREE TO DISAGREE.\n\nthen it becomes apparent that it is the atomo-mechanical theory\nwhich is untenable. The explanations of the latter, that \"the\ndifferences of weight are only differences of density, and differences\nof density are differences of distance between the particles contained\nin a given space,\" are not really valid, because, before\na physicist can argue in his defence that, \"as in the atom\nthere is no multiplicity of particles and no void space: hence\ndifferences of density or weight are impossible in the case of\natoms,\" he must first know what an atom is, in reality, and\nthat he cannot know. He must bring it under the observation *of\nat least one of *his physical senses -- and that *he cannot\ndo: *for the simple reason that no one has ever *seen*,*\nsmelt*,* heard*,* touched *or* tasted *an\n\"atom.\" The atom belongs wholly to the domain of metaphysics.\nIt is *an entified abstraction *--* *at any rate\nfor physical Science -- and has nought to do with physics, strictly\nspeaking, as it can never be brought to the test of retort or\nbalance. The mechanical conception, therefore, becomes a jumble\nof the most conflicting theories and dilemmas, in the minds of\nthe many Scientists who disagree on this, as on other subjects;\nthe evolution of which the Eastern Occultist, who follows this\nscientific strife, beholds in the greatest bewilderment.\n\nTo conclude on the question of gravity. How can Science presume\nto know anything certain of it? How can it maintain its position\nand its hypotheses against those of the Occultists, who see in\ngravity only sympathy and antipathy, or attraction and repulsion,\ncaused by physical polarity on our terrestrial plane, and by spiritual\ncauses outside of its influence? How can they disagree with the\nOccultists before they agree among themselves? Indeed one hears\nof the conservation of energy, and in the same breath of the perfect\nhardness and inelasticity of the atoms; of the Kinetic theory\nof gases being identical with \"potential energy,\" so\ncalled; and, at the same time, of the elementary units of mass\nbeing *absolutely hard *and* inelastic! *An Occultist\nopens a scientific work and reads as follows: --\n\n\"Physical atomism derives all the qualitative properties\nof matter from the forms of atomic motion. *The atoms themselves\nremain as elements utterly devoid of property.*\"*\n*(Wundt, \"*Die Theorie der Materie*,\"*\np. *381.)\n\nAnd further:\n\n\"Chemistry in its ultimate form *must be atomic mechanics.*\"*\n*(Nazesmann, \"*Thermochemie*,\"* *p.\n150.)\n\nAnd a moment after he is told that:\n\n\"Gases consist of atoms which *behave *like solid,\n*perfectly elastic *spheres.\" (Kroenig, Clausius,\nMaxwell, etc., *Philosophical Magazine*,* *Vol.\n**XIX**., p. 18.)\n\nFinally, to crown all, Sir W. Thomson is found declaring that:\n\n\"We are forbidden by the modern theory of the conservation\nof\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 514 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nenergy to assume inelasticity, or anything short *of perfect\nelasticity *of the ultimate molecules whether of ultra mundane\nor mundane matter.\" (!!!) (\"Philosophical Magazine,\"\np. 321, *loc. cit.*)\n\nBut what do the men of *true *Science say to all this?\nBy the \"men of true Science\" we mean those who care\ntoo much for truth and too little for their personal vanity to\ndogmatise on anything, as the majority do. There are several among\nthem -- perhaps more than dare publish openly their secret conclusions\nfor fear of the cry \"Stone him to death!\" -- men, whose\nintuitions have made them span the abyss that lies between the\nterrestrial aspect of matter, and the -- to us, on our plane of\nillusion -- subjective, *i.e.*, TRANSCENDENTALLY OBJECTIVE\nSUBSTANCE, and led them to proclaim the existence of the latter.\nMatter, to the Occultist, it must be remembered, is that totality\nof *existences *in the Kosmos, which falls within any of\nthe planes of possible perception. We are but too well aware that\nthe orthodox theories of sound, heat and light, are against the\noccult doctrines. But, it is not enough for the men of Science,\nor their defenders, to say that *they do not deny dynamic power\nto light and heat; *and urge as a proof the fact that Mr.\nCrookes' radiometer has unsettled no views. If they would fathom\nthe ultimate nature of these Forces, they have first to admit\ntheir *substantial *nature, however *supersensuous.\n*Neither do the Occultists deny the correctness of the vibratory\ntheory.* Only they limit its functions to our Earth -- declaring\nits inadequacy on other planes than ours, since \"Masters\"\nin the Occult Sciences perceive the CAUSES that produce ethereal\nvibrations. Were all these only the fictions of the alchemists,\nor dreams of the Mystics, such men as Paracelsus, Philalethes,\nVan Helmont, and so many others, would have to be regarded as\nworse than visionaries: they would become impostors and deliberate\nmystificators.\n\nThe Occultists are taken to task for calling the *Cause *of\nlight, heat, sound, cohesion, magnetism, etc., etc., a *substance*.**\nMr. Clerk Maxwell has stated that the pressure of strong sunlight\non a square mile is about 3 1/4 lbs. It is, they are told, \"the\nenergy of the myriad ether waves;\" and when they call it\na \"substance\" impinging on that area, their explanation\nis proclaimed *unscientific.*\n\nThere is no justification for such an accusation. In no way --\nas stated\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Referring to the *Aura*, one of the Masters says in the\n\"Occult World,\" \"How could you make yourself understood\nby, command in fact, those semi-intelligent *forces*,*\n*whose means of communication with us are not through spoken\nwords but *through sounds and colours *in correlation between\nthe *vibrations *of the two.\" It is this \"correlation\"\nthat is unknown to modern Science, yet was many times explained\nby the Alchemists.\n\n** The \"substance\" of the Occultist, however, is to\nthe most refined *substance *of the physicist, what *radiant\nmatter *is to the leather of the Chemist's boots.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 515 THE MYSTIC RAYS.\n\nmore than once before now -- do the Occultists dispute the explanations\nof Science, as affording a solution of the *immediate *objective\nagencies at work. Science only errs in believing that, because\nit has detected in vibratory waves the *proximate *cause\nof these phenomena, it has, therefore, revealed ALL that lies\nbeyond the threshold of Sense. It merely traces the sequence of\nphenomena on a plane of effects, illusory projections from the\nregion that Occultism has long since penetrated. And the latter\nmaintains that those etheric tremors, are not, as asserted by\nScience, set up by the vibrations of the molecules of *known\n*bodies -- the matter of our terrestrial objective consciousness,\n-- but that we must seek for the ultimate causes of light, heat,\netc., etc., in **MATTER **existing in *super*-*sensuous\n*states* *--* *states, however, as fully objective\nto the spiritual eye of man, as a horse or a tree is to the ordinary\nmortal. Light and heat are the ghost or shadow of matter in motion.\nSuch states can be perceived by the SEER or the Adept during the\nhours of trance, under the *Sushumna ray *--* *the\nfirst of the Seven *Mystic *rays of the Sun.*\n\nThus, we put forward the Occult teaching which maintains the reality\nof a supersubstantial and supersensible essence of that *Akasa\n*(not ether, which is only an aspect of the latter), the nature\nof which cannot be inferred from its remoter manifestations --\n*its merely phenomenal phalanx of effects *--* *on\nthis terrene plane. Science, on the contrary, informs us that\nheat can never be regarded as matter in any conceivable state.**\nWe are also told that the two great obstacles to the fluid (?)\ntheory of heat undoubtedly are: --\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* The names of the Seven Rays -- which are, Sushumna, Harikesa,\nViswakarman, Viswatryarchas, Sannaddha, Sarvavasu and Swaraj --\nare all mystical, and each has its distinct application in a distinct\nstate of consciousness, for occult purposes. The *Sushumna*,\nwhich, as said in the *Nirukta *(11, 6), is only to light\nup the moon, is the ray nevertheless cherished by the initiated\nYogis. The totality of the Seven Rays spread through the Solar\nsystem constitute, so to say, the physical *Upadhi *(basis)\nof the *Ether of Science; *in which Upadhi, light, heat,\nelectricity, etc., etc., -- the forces of orthodox science --\ncorrelate to produce their terrestrial effects. As psychic and\nspiritual effects, they emanate from, and have their origin in,\nthe supra-solar Upadhi, in the ether of the Occultist -- or Akasa.\n\n** To cite a most impartial critic, one whose authority no one\ncan call in question, as a reminder to Western Dogmatists, that\nthe question cannot be in any way considered as settled: \"There\nis no fundamental difference between light and heat . . . each\nis merely a metamorphosis of the other. . . . Heat is light in\ncomplete repose. Light is heat in rapid motion. Directly light\nis combined with a body, it becomes heat; but when it is thrown\noff from that body it again becomes light.\" (*Leslie*'*s\nFluid Theory of Light and Heat.*)* *\"*Whether\nthis is true or false we cannot tell*,* *and many years,\nperhaps many generations, will have to elapse before we shall\nbe able to tell.\" (*Buckle*'*s History of Civilization*,*\n*Vol. III., p. 384.)\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 516 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n(1.) The production of heat by friction -- excitation of molecular\nmotions.\n\n(2.) The conversion of heat into mechanical motion.\n\nThe answer given is: There are fluids of various kinds. Electricity\nis called a fluid, and so was heat quite recently, but it was\non the supposition that heat was some imponderable substance.\nThis was during the supreme and autocratic reign of matter. When\nthe latter was dethroned, and MOTION was proclaimed the sole sovereign\nruler of the Universe, heat became \"a mode of motion.\"\nWe need not despair: it may become something else to-morrow. Like\nthe Universe itself, Science is ever *becoming*,* *and\ncan never say, \"I am that I am.\" On the other hand,\nOccult Science has its *changeless *traditions from prehistoric\ntimes. It may err in particulars; it can never become guilty of\na mistake in questions of Universal laws, simply because that\nScience, justly referred to by philosophy as the \"*divine*,\"*\n*was born on higher planes, and was brought on Earth by beings\nwho were wiser than man will be, even in the seventh Race of his\nSeventh Round. And *that *Science maintains that Forces\nare not what modern learning would have them; *e.g.*,*\n*Magnetism is *not *a \"mode of motion\"; and,\nin this particular case, at least, *exact *\"modern\nScience\" is sure to come to grief some day. Nothing, at the\nfirst blush, can appear more ridiculous, more outrageously absurd\nthan to say, for instance: \"the Hindu initiated Yogi knows\nreally *ten times more than the greatest European physicist\nof the ultimate nature and constitution of light *--* *both\nsolar and lunar.\" Yet why is the Sushumna ray believed to\nbe that ray which furnishes the moon with its borrowed light?\nWhy is it \"the ray cherished *by the initiated Yogi?*\"*\n*Why is the moon held as the *deity of the mind*,*\n*by those Yogis? We say, because light, or rather all its\noccult properties, every combination and correlation of it with\nother forces, mental, psychic, and spiritual, were perfectly known\nto the old adepts.\n\nTherefore, although, in its knowledge of the ultimate constitution\nof matter, or in the so-called ultimate analysis as opposed to\nthe proximate in chemistry, occult science may be less well-informed\nas to the behaviour of compound elements in various cases of physical\ncorrelations: still, it is immeasurably higher in its knowledge\nof the ultimate occult states of matter, and of the true nature\nof matter, than all the physicists and chemists of our modern\nday put together.\n\nNow, if we state the truth openly and in full sincerity, namely,\nthat the ancient Initiates had a far wider knowledge of physics\n-- as a Science of Nature -- than our Academies of Science, all\ntaken together, possess, the statement will be characterized as\nan impertinence and an absurdity; for physical sciences are considered\nto have been carried in our age to the apex of perfection. Hence,\nthe twitting query -- \"Can\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 517 THE CAUSES AND THE EFFECTS.\n\nthe Occultists meet successfully the two points, namely (*a*)\nthe production of heat by friction -- excitation of molecular\nmotions; and (*b*) the conversion of heat into mechanical\nforce, if they hold to the old \"exploded\" theory of\nheat being a substance or a fluid?\"\n\nTo answer the question, it must first be observed that the Occult\nSciences do not regard either electricity or any of the forces\nsupposed to be generated by it, as matter, *in any of the states\nknown to physical Science; *to put it more clearly, none of\nthese \"forces,\" so-called, are either solids, gases,\nor fluids. If it did not look pedantic, an Occultist would even\nobject to electricity being called a fluid --* as it is an\neffect and not a cause. *But its *noumenon*,* *he\nwould say, *is a conscious cause. *The same in the cases\nof \"Force\" and the \"Atom.\" Let us see what\nan eminent Academician, Butlerof, the chemist, had to say about\nthese two abstractions.\n\n--------------\n\n\"What is Force?\" argues this great man of Science, \"what\nis it from a strictly scientific stand-point, and as warranted\nby the law of conservation of energy? Conceptions of Force are\nresumed by our conceptions of this, that, or another mode of motion.\"\nForce is thus simply the passage of *one state of motion into\nanother state of the same: *of electricity, into heat and\nlight, of heat into sound or some mechanical function, and so\non.* The first time electric fluid was produced by man on earth\nit must have been by friction; hence, as well-known, it is heat\nthat produces it by disturbing its *laya *state,** and\nelectricity exists no more on earth *per se *than heat\nor light, or any other force. They are all correlations, as science\nsays. \"When a given quantity of heat, assisted by a steam\nengine, is transformed into mechanical work, we speak of steam\npower (or force). When a falling body strikes an obstacle in its\nway, thereby generating heat and sound -- we call it the power\nof collision. When electricity decomposes water or heats a platinum\nwire, we speak of the force of the electric fluid. When the rays\nof the sun are intercepted by the thermometer bulb and its quicksilver\nexpands, we speak of the calorific energy of the sun. In short,\nwhen one state of a determined quantity of motion ceases, another\nstate of motion equivalent to the preceding takes its place, and\nthe result of such a transformation or correlation is -- force.\nIn all cases where such a transformation, or the passage of one\nstate of motion into another, is entirely absent, there no force\nis possible. Let us admit for a moment an absolutely homogeneous\nstate of the Universe, and our conception of force falls down\nto nought.\"\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* On the plane of manifestation and illusionary matter it may\nbe so; not that it is nothing more, for it is vastly more.\n\n** Neutral, or zero.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 518 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n\"Therefore it becomes evident that the force, which materialism\nconsiders as the cause of the diversity that surrounds us, is\nin sober reality only an effect, a result of that diversity. From\nsuch point of view force is not the cause of motion, but a result,\nwhile the cause of that force, or forces, is not the substance\nor matter, but motion itself. Matter thus must be laid aside and\nwith it the basic principle of materialism, which has become unnecessary,\nas force brought down to a state of motion can give no idea of\nthe substance. If force is the result of motion, then it becomes\nincomprehensible *why that motion should become witness to\nmatter *and not to Spirit or a Spiritual essence. True, our\nreason cannot conceive of a motion minus something moving (and\nour reason is right); but the nature or *esse *of that\nsomething moving remains to Science entirely unknown; and the\nSpiritualist, in such case, has as much right to attribute it\nto a \"Spirit,\" as a Materialist to creative and all-potential\nmatter. A Materialist has no special privileges in this instance,\nnor can he claim any. The law of the conservation of energy, as\nthus seen, is shown to be illegitimate in its pretensions and\nclaims in this case. The \"great dogma\" -- *no force\nwithout matter and no matter without force *--* *falls\nto the ground, and loses entirely the solemn significance with\nwhich materialism has tried to invest it. The conception of force\nstill gives no idea of matter and compels us in no way to see\nin it \"the origin of all origins.\" (\"*Scientific\nLetters*,\"* Professor Butlerof.*)\n\nWe are assured that real science is not materialistic; and our\nown conviction tells us that it cannot be so, when its learning\nis real. There is a good reason for it, well defined by some physicists\nand chemists themselves. Natural sciences *cannot *go hand\nin hand with materialism. To be at the height of their calling,\nmen of science have to reject the very possibility of materialistic\ndoctrines having aught to do with the *atomic *theory;\nand we find that Lange, Butlerof, Du Bois Reymond, -- the latter\nprobably unconsciously -- and several others, have proved it.\nAnd it is, furthermore, demonstrated by the fact, that Kanada\nin India, and Leucippus, Democritus, and after them Epicurus --\nthe earliest atomists in Europe -- while propagating their doctrine\nof definite proportions, believed in *Gods *or supersensuous\nentities, at the same time. Their ideas upon matter thus differed\nfrom those now prevalent. We must be allowed to make our statement\nclearer in a short synopsis of the ancient and modern views of\nphilosophy upon atoms, and thus prove that the atomic theory kills\nMaterialism.\n\nFrom the standpoint of Materialism, which reduces the beginnings\nof all to *matter*,* *the Universe consists, in\nits fullness, of atoms and vacuity. Even leaving aside the axiom\n-- now absolutely demonstrated by telescope and microscope --\ntaught by the ancients, that nature abhors\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 519 THE VICIOUS CIRCLE.\n\nvacuum, what is an atom? \"It is, we are answered by Science,\"\nwrites Professor Butlerof, \"the limited division of substance,\nthe indivisible particle of matter. To admit the divisibility\nof the atom, amounts to an admission of an infinite divisibility\nof substance, which is equivalent to reducing substance to *nihil*,*\n*a nothingness. Owing to a feeling of self-preservation alone,\nmaterialism cannot admit infinite divisibility; otherwise, it\nwould have to bid farewell for ever to its basic principle and\nthus sign its own death-warrant.\" Buchner, for instance,\nlike a true dogmatist in materialism, declares that \"to accept\ninfinite divisibility is absurd, and amounts to doubting the very\nexistence of matter.\" The Atom is indivisible then, saith\nMaterialism? Very well.\n\n\"See now what a curious contradiction this fundamental principle\nof the materialists is leading them into,\" writes Butlerof.\n\"The atom is *indivisible*,* *and at the same time\nwe know it to be *elastic. *An attempt to deprive it of elasticity\nis unthinkable; it would amount to an absurdity. *Absolutely\nnon*-*elastic atoms could never exhibit a single one of those\nnumerous phenomena that are attributed to their correlations.\n*Without any elasticity, the atoms could not manifest their\nenergy, and the substance of the materialists would remain weeded\nof every force. Therefore, if the Universe is composed of atoms,\nthen those atoms *must be elastic. *It is here that we meet\nwith an insuperable obstacle. For, what are the conditions requisite\nfor the manifestation of elasticity? An elastic ball, when striking\nagainst an obstacle, is flattened and contracts, which it would\nbe impossible for it to do, were not that ball to consist of particles,\nthe relative position of which experiences at the time of the\nblow a temporary change. This may be said of elasticity in general;\nno elasticity is possible without change with respect to the position\nof the compound particles of an elastic body. This means that\nthe elastic body is changeful and consists of particles, or, in\nother words, that elasticity can pertain *only to those bodies\nthat are divisible. *And the atom *is* elastic.\"\n\nThis is sufficient to show how absurd are the simultaneous admissions\nof the non-divisibility and elasticity of the atom. The atom *is\n*elastic,* ergo*,* *the atom is divisible, and\nmust consist of particles, or of *sub*-atoms. And these\n*sub*-atoms? They are either non-elastic, and in such case\nthey represent no dynamic importance, or, they are *elastic\n*also; and in that case, they, too, are subject to divisibility.\nAnd thus *ad infinitum. *But infinite divisibility of atoms\nresolves matter into simple centres of force, *i.e.*, precludes\nthe possibility of conceiving matter as an *objective *substance.\n\nThis vicious circle is fatal to materialism. It finds itself caught\nin its own nets, and no issue is possible for it out of the dilemma.\nIf it says that the atom is indivisible, then it will have mechanics\nasking it the awkward question: \"How does the Universe move\nin this case, and how do its forces correlate? A world built on\nabsolutely *non*-elastic atoms, is like an engine without\nsteam, it is doomed to eternal inertia.\"*\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* \"Scientific Letters,\" Butlerof.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 520 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nAccept the explanations and teachings of Occultism, and, the blind\ninertia of physical Science being replaced by the *intelligent\nactive *Powers behind the veil of matter, motion and inertia\nbecome subservient to those Powers. It is on the doctrine of the\nillusive nature of matter, and the infinite divisibility of the\natom, that the whole science of Occultism is built. It opens limitless\nhorizons to *substance *informed by the divine breath of\nits soul in every possible state of tenuity, states still undreamt\nof by the most spiritually disposed chemists and physicists.\n\nThe above views were enunciated by an Academician, the greatest\nchemist in Russia, and a recognised authority even in Europe --\nthe late Professor Butlerof. True, he was defending the phenomena\nof the Spiritualists, the materializations, so called, in which\nhe believed as Professors Zollner, and Hare did, as Mr. A. Russell\nWallace, Mr. W. Crookes, and many another Fellow of the Royal\nSociety, do still, whether openly or secretly. But his argument\nwith regard to the nature of the essence that acts behind the\nphysical phenomena of light, heat, electricity, etc., is no less\nscientific and authoritative for all that, and apply admirably\nto the case in hand. Science has no right to deny to the Occultists\ntheir claim to a more profound knowledge of the so-called Forces;\nwhich, they say, are only the effects of causes generated by Powers,\nsubstantial, yet supersensuous, and *beyond *any kind of\nmatter with which they (the Scientists) have hitherto become acquainted.\nThe most science can do is to assume the attitude of agnosticism\nand to maintain it. Then it can say: \"Your case is no more\nproven than is ours; but we confess to knowing nothing in reality\neither about Force or matter, or that which lies at the bottom\nof the so-called correlations of Forces. Therefore, time alone\ncan prove who is right and who is wrong. Let us wait patiently,\nand meanwhile show courtesy instead of scoffing at each other.\"\n\nBut to do this requires a boundless love of truth and the surrender\nof that prestige -- however false -- of *infallibility*,*\n*which the men of Science have acquired among the ignorant\nand flippant, though cultured, masses of the profane. To blend\nthe two sciences, the archaic and the modern, requires first of\nall the abandonment of the actual materialistic lines. It necessitates\na kind of religious mysticism and even the study of old magic,\nwhich our Academicians will never take up. The necessity is easily\nexplained. Just as in old alchemical works the real meaning of\nthe substances and elements meant are concealed under the most\nridiculous metaphors, so are the physical, psychic, and spiritual\nnatures of the Elements (say of fire) concealed in the Vedas,\nand especially in the Puranas, under allegories comprehensible\nonly to the Initiates. Had they no meaning, then indeed all those\nlong legends and allegories about the sacredness of the three\ntypes of fire, and the *forty*-*nine original fires*\n--\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 521 CHEMICAL GODS.\n\npersonified by the Sons of Daksha's daughters and the Rishis,\ntheir husbands, \"who with the first son of Brahma and his\nthree descendants constitute the forty-nine fires\" -- would\nbe idiotic verbiage and no more. But it is not so. Every *fire*\nhas a distinct function and meaning in the worlds of the physical\nand the spiritual. It has, moreover, in its *essential *nature\na corresponding relation to one of the human psychic faculties,\nbesides its well determined chemical and physical potencies when\ncoming in contact with the *terrestrially *differentiated\nmatter. Science has no speculations to offer upon fire *per\nse; *Occultism and ancient religious science have. This is\nshown even in the meagre and purposely veiled phraseology of the\nPuranas, where (as in the *Vayu Purana*)* *many\nof the qualities of the *personified *fires are explained.\nThus, *Pavaka *is electric, or *Vaidyuta*,* *fire;\nPavamana, *the fire produced by friction*,* *(or*\nNirmathya*)*: *and *Suchi *is solar (or *Saura*)*\n*fire** *-- all these three being the sons of Abhimanin,\nthe Agni (fire), eldest son of Brahma and of Swaha. Pavaka, moreover,\nis made parent to Kavyavahana, *the fire of the Pitris: *Suchi\nto Havyavahana -- the fire of the gods; and Pavamana, to Saharaksha,\nthe fire of the Asuras. Now all this shows that the writers of\nthe Puranas were perfectly conversant with the \"Forces\"\nof Science and their correlations; moreover, with the various\nqualities of the latter in their bearing upon those psychic and\nphysical phenomena which receive no credit and are unknown to\nphysical science now. Very naturally, when an Orientalist, --\nespecially one with materialistic tendencies -- reads that these\nare only appellations of fire employed *in the invocations\n*and rituals, he calls this \"Tantrika superstition and\nmystification\"; and he becomes more careful to avoid errors\nin spelling, than to give attention to the secret meaning attached\nto the personifications, or to seek their explanation in the physical\ncorrelations of forces, so far as known. So little credit, indeed,\nis given to the ancient Aryans for knowledge, that even such glaring\npassages as in *Book I. chap. *ii,* Vishnu Purana*,*\n*are left without any notice. Nevertheless, what can this\nsentence mean? -- \"Then Ether, air, light, water, and earth,\nseverally united with the properties of sound and other qualities,\nexisted as distinguishable according to their properties, . .\n. . but possessing many and various energies and being unconnected,\nthey *could not*,* without combination*,* *create\nliving beings, not having blended with each other. . . . Having\ncombined . . . they assumed through mutual association, the character\nof one mass of entire unity; and directed by Spirit . . .\"\netc. This means, of course, that the writers were perfectly acquainted\nwith correlation and were well posted about the origin of Kosmos\nfrom the \"undiscrete Principle\" -- *Avyaktanugrahena*,*\n*as applied\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Called the \"drinker of waters,\" solar heat causing\nwater to evaporate.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 522 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nto Parabrahmam and Mulaprakriti conjointly, and not to \"Avyakta,\n*either *First Cause, or matter,\" as Wilson gives\nit. The old Initiates knew of no \"miraculous creation,\"\nbut taught the evolution of atoms (on our physical plane), and\ntheir first differentiation from *laya *into the *protyle*,*\n*as Mr. Crookes has suggestively named matter, or primordial\nsubstance *beyond *the zero-line: -- there where we place\n*Mulaprakriti*,* *the \"*root*-Principle\"\nof the world stuff and of all in the world.\n\nThis can be easily demonstrated. Take, for instance, the newly-published\ncatechism of the *Visishtadwaita Vedantins*,* *an\northodox and exoteric system, yet fully enunciated and taught\nin the XIth century (its founder, Ramanujacharya, being born in\n**A.D.** 1017), at a time when European \"Science\"\nstill believed in the squareness and flatness of the Earth, of\nCosmas-Indicopleustes of the VIth century. It teaches that before\nevolution began, Prakriti (Nature) was in a condition of *laya\n*or absolute homogeneity, as \"matter exists in two conditions,\nthe *sukshma*,* *or latent and undifferentiated,\nand the *sthula *or differentiated condition.\" Then\nit became *anu*, atomic. It teaches of *Sudda*-*satwa\n*-- \"a substance not subject to the qualities of matter,\nfrom which it is quite different,\" and adds that out of that\nsubstance the bodies of the inhabitants of Vaikuntaloka (the heaven\nof Vishnu), the gods, are formed. That every particle or atom\nof Prakriti contains *Jiva* (divine life), and is the *sarira\n*(body) of that Jiva which it contains, while every Jiva is\nin its turn the *sarira *of the supreme spirit, as \"Parabrahm\npervades every Jiva, as well as every particle of matter.\"\nDualistic and anthropomorphic as may be the philosophy of the\nVisishtadwaita, when compared with that of the *Adwaita*\n-- the non-dualists, -- it is yet supremely higher in logic and\nphilosophy than the cosmogony accepted by either Christianity,\nor its great opponent, modern Science. The followers of one of\nthe greatest minds that ever appeared on Earth, the *Adwaita\n*Vedantins are called *Atheists*,* *because\nthey regard all save Parabrahm, the *secondless*,* *or\nAbsolute Reality -- as an illusion. Yet the wisest Initiates came\nfrom their ranks, as also the greatest Yogis. The* Upanishads\n*show that they most assuredly knew not only what is the *causal\n*substance in the *effects *of* friction*,*\n*and that their forefathers were acquainted with the *conversion\nof heat into mechanical force*,* *but that they were\nacquainted with the *noumena *of every spiritual as well\nas of every cosmic phenomenon.\n\nTruly the young Brahmin who graduates in the universities and\ncolleges of India with the highest honours; who starts in life\nas an **M.A**. and an **LL.B.**, with a tail initialed from\nAlpha to Omega after his name, and a contempt for his national\ngods proportioned to the honours received in his education in\nphysical sciences; truly he has but to read in the light of the\nlatter, and with an eye to the correlation of\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 523 SUGGESTIVE ALLEGORIES.\n\nphysical Forces, certain passages in his Puranas, if he would\nlearn how much more his ancestors knew than he will ever know\n-- unless he becomes an occultist. Let him turn to the allegory\nof Pururavas and the celestial *Gandharva*,** *who\nfurnished the former with a vessel full of heavenly fire. The\nprimeval mode of obtaining fire by friction has its scientific\nexplanation in the Vedas, and is pregnant with meaning for him\nwho reads between the lines. The *Tretagni *(sacred triad\nof fires) obtained by the attrition of sticks made of the wood\nof the *Aswattha *tree (the Bo-tree, of Wisdom and Knowledge)\n-- sticks \"as many finger-breaths long as there are syllables\nin the gayatri\" must have a secret meaning, or else the writers\nof the Vedas and Puranas were no sacred writers but mystificators.\nThat it has such a meaning, the Hindu Occultists are a proof,\nand they alone are able to enlighten Science, as to why and how,\n\"the fire, that was primevally *one*,* *was\nmade threefold (*treta*)* *in our present Manvantara,\nby the Son of Ila (Vach), the primeval woman after the Deluge,\nthe wife and daughter of Vaivasvata Manu. The allegory is suggestive,\nin whatever Purana it may be read and studied.\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* The Gandharva of the Veda is the deity who knows and reveals\nthe secrets of heaven and divine truths to mortals. *Cosmically\n*--* *the Gandharvas are the aggregate powers of the\nsolar-fire, and constitute its Forces; *psychically *--*\n*the intelligence residing in the *Sushumna*,* *Solar\nray, the highest of the *seven *rays;* mystically *--*\n*the occult force in the Soma (the moon, or lunar plant) and\nthe drink made of it; *physically *--* *the phenomenal,\nand *spiritually *--* *the noumenal causes of *Sound\n*and the \"Voice of Nature.\" Hence, they are called\nthe 6,333 \"heavenly Singers\" and musicians of Indra's\nloka who personify (even in number) the various and manifold sounds\nin Nature, both above and below. In the latter allegories they\nare said to have mystic power over women, and *to be fond of\nthem. *The esoteric meaning is plain. They are one of the\nforms, if not the prototypes, of Enoch's angels, the Sons of God,\nwho saw that the daughters of men were fair (Gen. vi.) who married\nthem, and taught the daughters of the Earth *the secrets of\nHeaven.*\n\n--------------\n\n[[This page continued in next section]]\n\nNext Section\n\nContents",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}