{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/secret-doctrine/vol-1-cosmogenesis/45-xiii-the-modern-nebular-theory-588.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "vol-1-cosmogenesis",
    "name": "Volume I — Cosmogenesis"
  },
  "parents": [
    {
      "slug": "secret-doctrine",
      "name": "The Secret Doctrine",
      "url": "/sources/secret-doctrine/"
    }
  ],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 43,
    "slug": "45-xiii-the-modern-nebular-theory-588",
    "title": "XIII. THE MODERN NEBULAR THEORY ... 588",
    "of": 48,
    "words": 6454,
    "text": "## XIII. THE MODERN NEBULAR THEORY ... 588\n\n\nThe Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, vol 1, bk 3, ch 13\n\n###### The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol.\n1\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 588 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n##### XIII.\nSCIENTIFIC AND ESOTERIC EVIDENCE FOR, AND OBJECTIONS TO, THE MODERN\nNEBULAR THEORY.\n\n**O**F late Esoteric Cosmogony has been frequently\nopposed by the phantom of this theory and its ensuing hypotheses.\n\"Can this most scientific teaching be denied by your adepts?\"\nit is asked. \"Not entirely,\" is the reply, \"but\nthe admissions of the men of Science themselves *kill*\nit; and there remains nothing for the adepts to deny.\"\n\nTo make of Science an integral *whole *necessitates, indeed,\nthe study of spiritual and psychic, as well as physical Nature.\nOtherwise it will ever be like the anatomy of man, discussed of\nold by the profane from the point of view of his shell-side and\nin ignorance of the interior work. Even Plato, the greatest philosopher\nof his country, became guilty, before his initiation, of such\nstatements as that liquids pass into the stomach through the lungs.\nWithout metaphysics, as Mr. H. J. Slack says, *real* science\nis inadmissible.\n\nThe nebulae exist; yet the nebular theory is wrong. A nebula exists\nin a state of entire elemental dissociation. It* is *gaseous\nand -- something else besides, which can hardly be connected with\ngases, as known to physical science; and it *is* self-luminous.\nBut that is all. The sixty-two \"coincidences\" enumerated\nby Professor Stephen Alexander,* confirming the nebular theory,\nmay all be explained by esoteric science; though, as this is not\nan astronomical work, the refutations are not attempted at present.\nLaplace and Faye come nearer to the correct theory than any; but\nof the speculations of Laplace there remains little in the present\ntheory except its general features. Nevertheless, \"there\nis in Laplace's theory,\" says John Stuart Mill, \"*nothing\nhypothetical*; it is an example of legitimate reasoning from\npresent effect to its past cause; it assumes nothing more than\nthat objects which really exist, obey the laws which are known\nto be obeyed by all terrestrial objects resembling them.\"\n(*System of Logic*,* *p. 229).\n\nThis from such an eminent logician as Mill was, would be valuable,\nif it could only be proved that \"terrestrial objects *resembling\n. *. .\" celestial objects at such a distance as the nebulae\nare* *-- *resemble those objects in reality*,*\nnot alone in appearance.*\n\nAnother of the fallacies from the Occult stand-point, which are\nembodied in the modern theory as it now stands, is the hypothesis\nthat the planets were all detached from the Sun; that they are\nbone of\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* \"*Smithsonian Contributions*,\"* *xxi.,\nArt. 1, pp. 79-97.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 589 \"SO FAR SHALT THOU GO . . . .\"\n\nhis bone, and flesh of his flesh; whereas, the Sun and planets\nare only co-uterine brothers, having had the same nebular origin,\nonly in a different mode from that postulated by modern astronomy.\n\nThe many objections raised against the homogeneity of original\ndiffuse matter, on the ground of the uniformity in the composition\nof the fixed stars, by some opponents of the modern nebular theory,\ndo not affect the question of that homogeneity at all, but only\nthe said theory. Our solar nebula may not be completely homogeneous,\nor, rather, it may fail to reveal itself as such to the astronomers,\nand yet be *de facto *homogeneous. The stars do differ\nin their constituent materials and even exhibit elements quite\nunknown on earth; nevertheless, this does not affect the point\nthat primeval matter -- *i.e.*,* *as it *appeared\neven in its first *differentiation from its *laya *condition*\n-- is yet to this day homogeneous, at immense distances, in the\ndepths of infinitude, and likewise at points not far removed from\nthe outskirts of our solar system.\n\nFinally, there does not exist one single fact brought forward\nby the learned objectors against the \"nebular theory,\"\n(false as it is, and hence, *illogically enough*,* *fatal\nto the hypothesis of the homogeneity of matter,) that can withstand\ncriticism. One error leads into another. A false premise will\nnaturally lead to a false conclusion, although an inadmissible\ninference does not *necessarily *affect the validity of\nthe major proposition of the syllogism. Thus, one may leave every\nside-issue and inference from the evidence of spectra, and lines,\nas simply provisional for the present, and abandon all matters\nof detail to physical science. The duty of the Occultist lies\nwith the *Soul and Spirit *of Cosmic Space, not merely\nwith its illusive appearance and behaviour. That of official physical\nscience is to analyze and study its *shell* -- the *Ultima\nThule *of* *the Universe and man, in the opinion of\nMaterialism.\n\nWith the latter, Occultism has nought to do. It is only with the\ntheories of such men of learning as Kepler, Kant, Oersted, and\nSir W. Herschell, who believed in a Spiritual world, that Occult\nCosmogony might treat, and attempt a satisfactory compromise.\nBut the views of those physicists differed vastly from the latest\nmodern speculations. Kant and Herschell had in their mind's eye\nspeculations upon the origin and *the final destiny*,*\n*as well as the present aspect, of the Universe, from a far\nmore philosophical and psychic standpoint; whereas modern Cosmology\nand Astronomy now repudiate anything like research into the mysteries\nof being. The result is what might be expected: complete failure\nand inextricable contradictions in the thousand and one varieties\nof so-called scientific theories, and in this theory as in all\nothers.\n\nThe nebular hypothesis, involving the theory of the existence\nof a\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Beyond the zero-line of action.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 590 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nprimeval matter, diffused in a nebulous condition, is of no modern\ndate in astronomy as everyone knows. Anaximenes, of the Ionian\nschool, had already taught that the sidereal bodies were formed\nthrough the progressive condensation of a primordial *pregenetic\n*matter, which had almost a negative weight, and was spread\nout through Space in an extremely sublimated condition.\n\nTycho Brahe, who viewed the Milky Way as an ethereal substance,\nthought the new star that appeared in Cassiopoeia, in 1572, had\nbeen formed out of that matter. (\"*Progymnasmata*\"*\n*p. 795.) Kepler believed the star of 1606 had been likewise\nformed out of the ethereal substance that fills the universe (\"*De\nstella nova in pede Serpentarii*,\" p*. *115).\nHe attributed to that same ether the apparition of a luminous\nring around the moon, during the total eclipse of the sun observed\nat Naples in 1605*. *(\"*Hypotheses Cosmogoniques*,\"*\nC. Wolf.*)* *Still later, in 1714, -- the existence\nof a self-luminous matter was recognised by Halley (\"*Philosophical\nTransactions*\")*. *Finally, the journal of this\nname published in 1811 the famous hypothesis on the transformation\nof the nebulae into stars, by the eminent astronomer, Sir W. Herschell\n(*See *\"*Philosophical Transactions*,\"*\nof *1811, p. 269, *et seq.*),* *after which\nthe nebular theory was accepted by the Royal Academies.\n\nIn \"Five years of Theosophy,\" on p. 245, an article\nheaded \"*Do* *the Adepts deny the Nebular Theory?*\"*\n*may be read. The answer there given is \"No; they do\nnot deny *its general propositions*,* nor the approximative\ntruth of the scientific *hypotheses. They only deny the *completeness\n*of the present, as well as the entire error of the many so-called\n\"exploded\" old theories, which, during the last century,\nhave followed each other in such rapid succession.\"\n\nThis was proclaimed at the time \"an evasive answer.\"\nSuch disrespect to official science, it was argued, must be justified\nby the presentation, to replace the *orthodox *speculation,\nof another theory more complete than theirs, and having a firmer\nground to stand upon. To this there is but one reply; it is useless\nto give out isolated theories with regard to things embodied in\na whole and consecutive system, which, when separated from the\nmain body of the teaching, would necessarily lose their vital\ncoherence and thus do no good when studied independently. To be\nable to appreciate and accept the occult views on the nebular\ntheory, one has to study the whole esoteric cosmogonical system.\nAnd the time has hardly arrived for the astronomers to be asked\nto accept *Fohat *and the divine Builders. Even the undeniably\ncorrect surmises of Sir W. Herschell], that had nothing \"supernatural\"\nin them, about the sun being called \"*globe of fire*\"*\n*(perhaps) *metaphorically*,* *and his early\nspeculations about the nature of that which is now called the\nNasmyth willow-leaf theory -- caused that most eminent of all\nastro-\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 591 FORCES ARE EMANATIONS.\n\nnomers to be smiled at by other, far less eminent colleagues,\nwho saw and now see in his ideas only \"imaginative and fanciful\ntheories.\" Before the whole esoteric system could be given\nout and appreciated by the astronomers, they would have to return\nto some of those \"antiquated ideas,\" not only to those\nof Herschell, but to the dreams of the oldest Hindu astronomers,\nand to abandon their own theories, none the less \"fanciful\"\nbecause they have appeared in one case nearly 80 years and in\nthe other many thousands of years later. Foremost of all they\nwould have to repudiate the ideas on the Sun's *solidity*\nand *incandescence; *the sun \"glowing\" most undeniably,\nbut not \"burning.\" Then it is stated, with regard to\nSir W. Herschell's view that those \"objects,\" as he\ncalled the \"willow leaves,\" are the immediate *sources*\n*of the solar light and heat. *And though the esoteric\nteaching does not regard these as he did -- namely, *organisms\n*as partaking of the nature of life,\" for the Solar \"Beings\"\nwill hardly place themselves within telescopic focus -- yet it\nasserts that the whole Universe is full of such \"organisms,\"\nconscious and active according to the proximity or distance of\ntheir planes to, or from, our plane of consciousness; and that\nfinally the great astronomer was right in saying that \"we\ndo not know that vital action is competent to develop at once\nheat, light, and electricity\" while speculating on those\nsupposed \"organisms.\" For, at the risk of being laughed\nat by the whole world of physicists, the Occultists maintain that\nall the \"Forces\" of the Scientists have their origin\nin the *Vital Principle*,* *the ONE LIFE collectively\nof our Solar system -- that \"*life*\" being a\nportion, or rather one of the *aspects *of the One Universal\nLIFE.\n\nWe may, therefore, as in the article under consideration, wherein,\non the authority of the Adepts, it was maintained that it is \"sufficient\nto make a *resume *of what the solar physicists *do\nnot know*,\"* *--* *we may, we maintain,\ndefine our position with regard to the modern nebular theory and\nits evident incorrectness, by simply pointing out facts diametrically\nopposed to it in its present form. And to begin with, what does\nit teach?\n\nSummarizing the aforesaid hypotheses, it becomes plain that Laplace's\ntheory -- now made quite unrecognisable, moreover -- was an unfortunate\none. He postulates in the first place Cosmic matter, existing\nin a state of diffuse nebulosity \"so fine that its presence\ncould hardly have been suspected.\" No attempt is made by\nhim to penetrate into the arcana of being, except as regards the\nimmediate evolution of our small solar system.\n\nConsequently, whether one accepts or rejects his theory in its\nbearing upon the immediate cosmological problems presented for\nsolution, he can only be said to have thrown back the mystery\na little further. To the eternal query -- \"Whence matter\nitself; whence the evolutionary impetus\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 592 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\ndetermining its cyclic aggregations and dissolutions; whence the\nexquisite symmetry and order into which the primeval atoms arrange\nand group themselves?\" -- no answer is attempted by Laplace.\nAll we are confronted with, is a sketch of the *probable *broad\nprinciples on which the actual process is assumed to be based.\nWell, and what is this now celebrated note on the said process?\nWhat has he given so wonderfully new and original, that its ground-work,\nat any rate, should have served as a basis for the modern nebular\ntheory? This is what one gathers from various astronomical works.\n\nLaplace thought that, consequent on the condensation of the atoms\nof the primeval nebula, according to the \"Law\" of gravity,\nthe now gaseous, or perhaps, partially liquid mass, acquired a\nrotatory motion. As the velocity of this rotation increased, it\nassumed the form of a thin disc; finally, the centrifugal force\noverpowering that of cohesion, huge rings were detached from the\nedge of the whirling incandescent masses, contracting necessarily\nby gravitation (as accepted) into spheroidal bodies, which would\nnecessarily still continue to preserve the same orbit occupied\npreviously by the outer zone from which they were separated. (\"Laplace\nconceived that the external and internal zones of the ring would\nrotate with the same angular velocity, which would be the case\nwith a solid ring; but the principle of equal areas requires the\ninner zones to rotate more rapidly than the outer.\")* The\nvelocity of the outer edge of each nascent planet, he said, exceeding\nthat of the inner, there results a rotation on its axis. The more\ndense bodies would be thrown off last; and finally, during the\npreliminary state of their formation, the newly-segregated orbs\nin their turn throw off one or more satellites . . . In formulating\nthe history of the rupture and planetation of rings, Laplace says:\n\n\"Almost always each ring of vapours must have broken up into\nnumerous masses, which, moving with a nearly uniform velocity,\nmust have continued to circulate at the same distance around the\nSun. These masses must have taken a spheroidal form with a motion\nof rotation in the same direction as their revolution, since the\ninner molecules (those nearer to the Sun) would have less actual\nvelocity than the exterior ones. They must then have formed as\nmany planets in a state of vapour. But, if one of them was sufficiently\npowerful to unite successively, by its attraction, all the others\naround its centre, the ring of vapours must have been thus transformed\ninto a single spheroidal mass of vapours circulating around the\nSun with a rotation in the same direction as its revolution. The\nlatter case has been the more common, but the solar system presents\nus the first case, in the four small planets which move between\nJupiter and Mars.\"\n\nWhile few will be found to deny \"the magnificent audacity\nof this\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* \"World-Life.\" Prof. Winchell points to a good many\nmistakes of Laplace in his work; but as a *geologist *he\nis not infallible himself in his \"astronomical speculations.\"\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 593 UNANSWERABLE QUERIES.\n\nhypothesis,\" it is impossible not to recognise the insurmountable\ndifficulties with which it is attended. Why, for instance, do\nwe find that the satellites of Neptune and Uranus display a retrograde\nmotion; that, in spite of its closer proximity to the Sun, Venus\nis less dense than the Earth? Similarly, the more distant Uranus\nis more dense than Saturn? How is it that so many variations in\nthe inclination of their axes and orbits are present in the supposed\nprogeny of the central orb; that such startling variations in\nthe size of the planets is noticeable; that the Satellites of\nJupiter are more dense by .288 than their primary -- that the\nphenomena of meteoric and cometic systems still remain unaccounted\nfor? To quote the words of a Master: \"They (the Occultists)\nfind that the centrifugal theory of Western birth is unable to\ncover *all* the ground. That, unaided, it can neither account\nfor every oblate spheroid, nor explain away such evident difficulties\nas are presented by the relative density of some planets. How,\nindeed, can any calculation of centrifugal force explain to us,\nfor instance, why Mercury, whose rotation is, we are told, only\nabout one-third that of the Earth, and its density only about\none-fourth greater than the Earth, should have a polar compression\n*more than ten times as great as the latter? *And again,\nwhy Jupiter, whose equatorial rotation is said to be 'twenty-seven\ntimes greater, and its density only about one-fifth that of the\nearth' should have its polar compression seventeen times greater\nthan that of the earth? Or why Saturn, with an equatorial velocity\nfifty-five times greater than Mercury for centripetal force to\ncontend with, should have its polar compression *only three\ntimes *greater than Mercury's? To crown the above contradictions,\nwe are asked to believe in the Central Forces, as taught by Modern\nScience, even when told that the equatorial matter of the Sun,\nwith more than four times the centrifugal velocity of the Earth's\nequatorial surface, and only about one-fourth part of the gravitation\nof the equatorial matter, has not manifested any tendency to bulge\nat the Solar equator, nor shown the least flattening of the poles\nof the Solar axis. In other and clearer words, the Sun, with only\none fourth of our Earth's density for the centrifugal force to\nwork upon, has no polar compression at all! We find this objection\nmade by more than one astronomer, yet never explained away satisfactorily\nso far as the 'Adepts' are aware.\"\n\n\"Therefore, do they (the Adepts) say, that the great men\nof science of the West, knowing . . . . . next to nothing either\nabout cometary matter, centrifugal and centripetal forces, the\nnature of the nebulae, or the physical constitution of the Sun,\nthe Stars, or even the Moon, are imprudent to speak as confidently\nas they do about the 'central mass of the Sun' whirling out into\nspace planets, comets, and what not . . . .\" \"We maintain\nthat it (the Sun) evolves out only the *life*-principle,\nthe\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 594 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nSoul of those bodies, *giving and receiving *it back, in\nour solar system, as the 'Universal Life-Giver' . . . . in infinitude\nand Eternity; that the solar system is as much the *microcosm\n*of the ONE Macrocosm as man is the former when compared with\nhis own little Solar Cosmos.\"*\n\nThe essential faculty possessed by all the cosmic and terrestrial\nelements, of generating within themselves a regular and harmonious\nseries of results, a concatenation of causes and effects, is an\nirrefutable proof that they are either animated by an *extra\n*or *intra* INTELLIGENCE, or conceal such within or\nbehind the *manifested veil. *Occultism does not deny the\ncertainty of the mechanical origin of the Universe; it only claims\nthe absolute necessity of mechanicians of some sort behind those\nElements (or *within*)* *-- a dogma with us. It\nis not the fortuitous assistance of the atoms of Lucretius, who\nhimself knew better, that built the Kosmos and all in it. Nature\nherself contradicts such a theory. Celestial space, containing\nmatter so attenuated as is Ether, cannot be called on, with or\nwithout attraction, to explain the common motion of the sidereal\nhosts. Although the perfect accord of their mutual revolution\nindicates clearly the presence of a mechanical cause in Nature,\nNewton, who of all men had best right to trust to his deductions\nand views, was nevertheless forced to abandon the idea of ever\nexplaining, by the laws of *known *Nature and its Material\nforces, the original impulse given to the millions of orbs. He\nrecognised fully the limits that separate the action of natural\nForces from that of the **I**NTELLIGENCES that set\nthe immutable laws into order and action. And if a **N**EWTON\nhad to renounce such hope, which of the modern materialistic pigmies\nhas the right of saying: \"I know better\"?\n\nTo become complete and comprehensible, a cosmogonical theory has\nto start with a primordial Substance diffused throughout boundless\nSpace, *of an intellectual and divine Nature. *That substance\nmust be the Soul and Spirit, the Synthesis and *Seventh Principle\n*of the manifested Kosmos, and, to serve as a spiritual *Upadhi\n*to this, there must be the sixth, its vehicle* *--*\nprimordial physical matter*,* *so to speak, though\nits nature must escape for ever our limited *normal *senses.\nIt is easy for an astronomer, if endowed with an imaginative faculty,\nto build a theory of the emergence of the universe out of chaos,\nby simply applying to it the principles of mechanics. But such\na universe will always prove, with respect to its scientific human\ncreator, a Frankenstein's monster; it will lead him into endless\nperplexities. The application of the mechanical laws only can\nnever carry the speculator beyond the objective world; nor will\nit unveil to men the origin and final destiny of Kosmos. This\nis\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n** *\"*Five Years of Theosophy*,\"* pp.\n*249-50*. Art. *\"*Do the Adepts deny the Nebular*\n*Theory?*\"\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 595 WHAT ARE THE NEBULAE?\n\nwhither the nebular theory has led Science. In sober fact and\ntruth this theory is twin sister to that of Ether, and both are\nthe offsprings of necessity; one as indispensable to account for\nthe transmission of light, as the other to explain the problem\nof the origin of the solar systems. The question with them is,\nhow the same homogeneous matter* could, obeying the laws of Newton,\ngive birth to bodies -- sun, planets, and their satellites --\nsubject to conditions of identity of motion and formed of such\nheterogeneous elements.\n\nHas the nebular theory helped to solve the problem, even if applied\nsolely to bodies considered as inanimate and material? We say\nmost decidedly not. What progress has it made since 1811, when\nSir W. Herschell's paper, first presenting facts based on observation\nand showing the existence of nebular matter, made the \"Sons\"\nof the Royal Society \"shout for joy\"? Since then a still\ngreater discovery has permitted, through spectrum analysis, the\nverification and corroboration of Sir W. Herschell's conjecture.\nLaplace demanded some kind of primitive \"world stuff \"\nto prove the idea of progressive world-evolution and growth. Here\nit is, as offered two millenniums ago.\n\nThe \"world stuff,\" now *nebulae*,* *was\nknown from the highest antiquity. Anaxagoras taught that, having\ndifferentiated, the subsequent commixture of heterogeneous substances\nremained motionless and unorganized, until finally \"the Mind\"\n-- the collective body of Dhyan Chohans, we say -- began to work\nupon and communicated to it motion and order (*Aristotle*'*s\n*\"*Physica*,\"* viii*,* *1*.*)\nThe theory is now taken up in its first portion, that of *any\n*\"Mind\" interfering with it being rejected. Spectrum\nanalysis reveals the existence of nebulae formed entirely of gases\nand luminous vapours. Is this the primitive nebular matter? The\nspectra reveal, it is said, the physical conditions of the matter\nwhich emits cosmic light. The spectra of the resolvable and the\nirresolvable nebulae are shown to be entirely different, the spectra\nof the latter showing their physical state to be that of glowing\ngas or vapour. The bright lines of one nebula reveal the existence\nof hydrogen in it, and of other material substances known and\nunknown. The same in the atmospheres of the Sun and stars. This\nleads to the direct inference that a star is formed by the condensation\nof a nebula; hence that even the metals themselves on earth are\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Had astronomers held simply, in their present state of knowledge,\nto the hypothesis of Laplace, which was simply the formation of\nthe planetary system, it might in time have resulted in something\nlike an approximate truth. But the two parts of the general problem,\nthat of the formation of the universe, or the formation of the\nsuns and stars from the primitive matter, and then the development\nof the planets around their sun, rest on quite different facts\nin nature and are even so viewed by Science itself. They are at\nthe opposite poles of being.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 596 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nformed owing to the condensation of hydrogen or some other primitive\nmatter, some ancestral cousin to \"helium,\" perhaps,\nor some yet unknown stuff? *This does not clash with the occult\nteachings. *And this is the problem that chemistry is trying\nto solve; and it must succeed sooner or later in the task, accepting\n*nolens volens*,* *when it does, the esoteric teaching.\nBut when this does happen, it will kill the nebular theory as\nit now stands.\n\nMeanwhile Astronomy cannot accept in any way, if it is to be regarded\nas *an exact *science, the present theory of the filiation\nof stars -- even if occultism does so in its own way, as it explains\nthis filiation differently -- because astronomy has *not one\nsingle physical datum *to show for it. Astronomy could anticipate\nChemistry in proving the existence of the fact, if it could show\na planetary nebula exhibiting a spectrum of three or four bright\nlines, gradually condensing and transforming into a star, with\na spectrum all covered with a number of dark lines. But \"the\nquestion of the variability of the nebula, even as to their form,\nis yet one of the mysteries of Astronomy. The data of observation\npossessed so far are of too recent an origin, too uncertain to\npermit us to affirm anything*.*\"* *(*Cosmogonical\nHypotheses of Wolf.*)\n\nSince the discovery of the spectroscope, its magic power has revealed\nto its adepts only one single transformation of a star of this\nkind; and even that one showed directly the reverse of what is\nneeded as proof in favour of the nebular theory; namely -- *a\nstar transforming itself into a planetary nebula. *As told\nin *The Observatory *(*Vol. I.*,* p. *185),\nthe temporary star which appeared in the constellation Cygnus,\nin November, 1876, discovered by J. F. J. Schmidt, exhibited a\nspectrum broken by very brilliant lines. Gradually, the continuous\nspectrum and most of the lines disappeared, leaving finally one\nsingle brilliant line, which appeared to coincide with the green\nline of the nebula.\n\nThough this metamorphosis is not irreconcileable with the hypothesis\nof the nebular origin of the stars, nevertheless this single solitary\ncase rests on no observation whatever, least of all on direct\nobservation. The occurrence may have been due to several other\ncauses. Since astronomers are inclined to think our planets are\ntending toward precipitation on the Sun, why should not that star\nhave blazed out owing to a collision of such precipitated planets,\nor, as many suggest, the appulse of a comet? Anyhow, the only\nknown instance of a star transformation since 1811 is not favourable\nto the nebular theory. Moreover, on the question of this theory,\nas in all others, astronomers disagree.\n\nIn our own age, it was Buffon, before Laplace ever thought of\nit, who, very much struck by the identity of motion in the planets,\nwas the first to propose the hypothesis of the planets and their\nsatellites originating in\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 597 THE META-ELEMENTS OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE.\n\nthe bosom of the Sun. Forthwith, and for the purpose, he invented\na special comet, supposed to have torn out, by a powerful oblique\nblow, the quantity of matter necessary to their formation. Laplace\ngave its dues to the \"comet\" in his \"*Exposition\ndu Systeme du Monde.*\"* *(Note VII.) But the idea\nwas seized and even improved upon by a conception of the alternate\nevolution from the Sun's central mass of planets *apparently\n*without weight or influence on the motion of the visible\nplanets -- and as evidently without any more existence than the\nlikeness of Moses in the moon.\n\nBut the modern theory is also a variation on the systems elaborated\nby Kant and Laplace. The idea of both was that, at the origin\nof things, all that matter which now enters into the composition\nof the planetary bodies was spread over all the space comprised\nin the solar system -- and even beyond. It was a nebula of extremely\nsmall density, whose condensation gradually gave birth, by a mechanism\nthat has hitherto never been explained, to the various bodies\nof our systems. This is the original nebular theory, an *incomplete\n*yet faithful repetition -- a short chapter out of the large\nvolume of universal *esoteric *cosmogony -- of the teachings\nin the Secret Doctrine. And both systems, Kant's and Laplace's,\ndiffer greatly from the modern theory, redundant with conflicting\n*sub*-theories and fanciful hypotheses.\n\n\"*The essence of cometary matter and of that which composes\nthe stars is totally different from any of the chemical or physical\ncharacteristics* *with which Western Science is now acquainted.\n*While the spectroscope has shown the probable similarity\n(owing *to the chemical action of terrestrial light *upon\nthe intercepted rays) of earthly and sidereal substance, the chemical\nactions, peculiar to the variously progressed orbs of space, have\nnot been detected, nor proven to be identical with those observed\non our own planet\" -- say the Teachers (*op. cit.*)*.\n*Mr. Crookes says almost the same in the fragment quoted from\nhis lecture, \"*Elements and Meta-Elements.*\"\n\n\"At the utmost,\" observes C. Wolf,* \"could the\nnebular hypothesis show in its favour, with W. Herschell, the\nexistence of planetary nebulae in various degrees of condensation,\nand of spiral nebulae, with nuclei of condensation on the branches\nand centre.** But, in fact, the knowledge of the bond that unites\nthe nebulae to the stars is yet denied to us; and lacking as we\ndo direct observation, we are even debarred from establishing\nit even on the analogy of chemical composition.\"\n\nIt is evident that, even if the men of science, leaving aside\nthe\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Member of the Institute, Astronomer of the Observatory, Paris,\n\"Cosmogonical Hypotheses.\"\n\n** But the spectra of these nebulae have never yet been ascertained.\nWhen they are found with bright lines, then only may they be cited.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 598 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\ndifficulty arising for them out of such undeniable variety and\nheterogeneity of matter in the constitution of nebulae, did admit,\nwith the ancients, that the origin of all the visible and invisible\nheavenly bodies must be sought for in one primordial homogeneous\nworld-stuff, in a kind of PRE-*protyle*,* -- it is evident\nthat this would not put an end to their perplexities. Unless they\nadmit also that our actual visible Universe is merely the *Sthula*-*Sharira*,*\n*the gross body, of the sevenfold Kosmos, they will have to\nface another problem; especially if they risk maintaining that\nits now visible bodies are the result of the condensation of that\none and single primordial matter. For mere observation shows them\nthat the actions which produced the actual Universe are far more\ncomplex than could ever be embraced in that theory.\n\nFirst of all, there are two distinct classes of *irresolvable*\nnebulae, -- as Science itself teaches.\n\nThe telescope is unable to distinguish between the two, but the\nspectroscope can, and notices, therefore, an essential difference\nbetween their physical constitutions.**\n\n\"Some of these,\" Wolf tells us, \"have a spectrum\nof three or four bright lines, others a continuous spectrum. The\nfirst are gaseous, the others formed of a pulverulent matter.\nThe former must constitute a veritable atmosphere: it is among\nthese that the solar nebula of Laplace has to be placed. The latter\nform an *ensemble *of particles that may be considered\nas independent, and the rotation of which obeys the laws of\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Mr. Crookes' \"Protyle\" must not be regarded as the\n*primary* stuff, out of which the Dhyan Chohans, in accordance\nwith the immutable laws of nature, wove our solar system. This\n*protyle* cannot even be the first *prima*-*materia\n*of Kant, which that great mind saw used up in the formation\nof the worlds, and thus existing no longer in a diffused state.\nIt is a MEDIATE phase in the progressive differentiation of cosmic\nsubstance from its normal undifferentiated state. *Protyle\n*is then the aspect assumed by matter in its middle passage\ninto full objectivity.\n\n** \"The question of the resolvability of the nebulae has\nbeen often presented in too affirmative a manner and quite contrary\nto the ideas expressed by the illustrious experimenter with the\nspectra of these constellations -- Mr. Huggins. Every nebula whose\nspectrum contains only bright lines is gaseous, it is said, and\nhence is irresolvable; every nebula with a continuous spectrum\nmust end by resolving into stars with an instrument of sufficient\npower. This assumption is contrary at once to the results obtained,\nand to spectroscopic theory. The *Lyra* nebula, the *Dumb*-*bell*\nnebula, the central region of the nebula of Orion, appear resolvable,\nand show a spectrum of bright lines; the nebula of *Canis Venatici\n*is not resolvable, and gives a continuous spectrum. Because,\nindeed, the spectroscope informs us of the physical state of the\nconstituent matter of the stars, but affords us no notions of\ntheir modes of aggregation. A nebula formed of gaseous globes\n(or even of nuclei, faintly luminous, surrounded by a powerful\natmosphere) would give a spectrum of lines and be still resolvable;\nsuch seems to be the state of Huggins' region in the Orion nebula.\nA nebula formed of solid or fluidic particles in a state of incandescence,\na true cloud, will give a continuous spectrum but will be *irresolvable.*\"*\n*(*C. Wolf*,* Cosmogonical Hypotheses.*)\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 599 THE NEBULAR THEORY A ROMANCE.\n\ninternal weight: such are the nebulae adopted by Kant and Faye.\nObservation allows us to place the one as the other at the very\norigin of the planetary world. But when we try to go beyond and\nascend to the primitive chaos which has produced the totality\nof the heavenly bodies, we have first to account for the actual\nexistence of these two classes of nebulae. If the primitive chaos\nwere *a cold luminous gas*,** *one could understand\nhow the contraction resulting from attraction could have heated\nit and made it luminous. We have to explain the condensation of\nthis gas to the state of incandescent particles, the presence\nof which is revealed to us in certain nebulae by the spectroscope.\nIf the original chaos was composed of such particles, how did\ncertain of their portions pass into the gaseous state, while others\nhave preserved their primitive condition? . . . .\"\n\nSuch is the synopsis of the objections and difficulties to the\nacceptance of the nebular theory brought forward by the French\n*savant*,* *who concludes his interesting chapter\nby declaring that: --\n\n\"The first part of the Cosmogonical problem, -- what is the\nprimitive matter of chaos; and how did that matter give birth\nto the sun and stars? -- thus remains to this day in THE DOMAIN\nOF ROMANCE AND OF MERE IMAGINATION.\"**\n\nIf this is the last word of Science upon that subject, whither\nthen should one turn in order to learn what the nebular theory\nis supposed to teach? What, in fact, is this theory? What it *is*,*\n*no one seems to know for a certainty. What it *is not\n*--* *we learn from the erudite author of the \"World-Life.\"\nHe tells us that: --\n\n(I.) It \"*is not a theory of the evolution *of the\nUniverse . . . but only and primarily a genetic explanation of\nthe phenomena of the solar system, and accessorily a co-ordination\nof the principal phenomena in the stellar and nebular firmament,\n*as far as human vision has been able to penetrate.*\"\n\n(II.) \"That it does not regard the Comets as involved in\nthat particular evolution which has produced the solar system.\"\n(*Esoteric doctrine does.*)* *\n\n(It does, because it, too, recognises the comets as forms of cosmic\nexistence* co*-*ordinated with earlier stages of nebular\nevolution; *and it actually assigns *to them chiefly *the\nformation of all worlds.)\n\n(III.) \"*That it does not deny an antecedent history of\nthe luminous fire mist*\" -- (the* secondary *stage\nof evolution in the Secret Doctrine) . . . . \"and makes no\nclaim to having reached an absolute beginning.\" And even\n\n[[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* See Stanza III. about \"Light, or the *cold *Flame,\"\nand Commentary Number 8, where it is explained that the \"mother\"\n(Chaos) is a cold Fire, a cool Radiance, colourless, formless,\ndevoid of every quality. \"Motion is the One Eternal *is*,\nand contains the potentialities of every quality in the Manvantaric\nWorlds,\" it is said.\n\n*** Hypotheses Cosmogoniques*,* *C. Wolf, 1886.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 600 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nit allows that this \"fire mist may have previously existed\nin a cold, nonluminous and *invisible *condition\"\n. . . .\n\n(IV.) \"And that finally: it does not profess to discover\nthe ORIGIN of things, *but only a stadium in material history*\"\n. . . . leaving \"the philosopher and theologian as free as\nthey ever were to seek for the origin of the modes of being.\"*\n\nBut this is not all. Even the greatest philosopher of England\n-- Mr. Herbert Spencer -- arrayed himself against the fantastic\ntheory by saying that (*a*) \"The problem of existence\nis not resolved\" by it; (*b*)* *the nebular\nhypothesis \"throws no light upon the origin of diffused matter,\"\nand (*c*) that \"the nebular hypothesis (as it now\nstands) implies a First Cause.\"**\n\nThe latter, we are afraid, is more than our modern physicists\nhave bargained for. Thus, it seems that the poor \"hypothesis\"\ncan hardly expect to find help or corroboration even in the world\nof the metaphysicians.\n\nConsidering all this, the Occultists believe they have a right\nto present *their* philosophy, however misunderstood and\nostracised it may be at present. And they maintain that this failure\nof the scientists to discover the truth is entirely due to their\nmaterialism and contempt for transcendental sciences. Yet although\nthe scientific minds in our century are as far from the true and\ncorrect doctrine of Evolution as ever, there may be still some\nhope left for the future, as we find another great scientist giving\nus a faint glimmer of it.\n\nIn an article in *Popular Science Review *(Vol. **XIV**.,\np. 252) on \"Recent Researches in Minute Life,\" we find\nMr. H. J. Slack, F.C.S., Sec. R.M.S., saying: \"There is an\nevident convergence of all sciences, from physics to chemistry\nand physiology, toward *some *doctrine of evolution and\ndevelopment, of which the facts of Darwinism *will form part*,*\n*but what ultimate aspect this doctrine will take, there is\nlittle, if any, evidence to show, and *perhaps it will not\nbe shaped by the human mind until metaphysical as well as physical\ninquiries are much more advanced.*\"\n\nThis is a happy forecast indeed. The day *may *come, then,\nwhen the \"Natural Selection,\" as taught by Mr. Darwin\nand Mr. Herbert Spencer, will form only *a part*,* *in\nits ultimate modification, of our Eastern doctrine of Evolution,\nwhich will be Manu and Kapila *esoterically explained.*\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* \"World-Life,\" p. 196.\n\n*** Westminster Review*,* XX.***,*** *July\n27, 1868.\n\nNext Section\n\nContents",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}