1. THE ETERNAL PARENT WRAPPED IN HER EVER INVISIBLE ROBES HAD SLUMBERED ONCE AGAIN FOR SEVEN ETERNITIES.
2. TIME WAS NOT, FOR IT LAY ASLEEP IN THE INFINITE BOSOM OF DURATION.
“Mr. Kingsland: The first differentiation would represent matter on the seventh plane?
Mme. Blavatsky: I believe, you can say so.
Mr. Kingsland: That is to say, I suppose that Mr. Crookes’ ideal protyle would be matter on its seventh plane.
Mme. Blavatsky: I do not know Mr. Crookes’ ideas about that. I am not sure, but what I understand he wants to find is simply matter in that state which he too calls the “zero-point”.
Mr. Keightley: Which would be so to speak the Laya point of this plane.
Mme. Blavatsky: I doubt whether he has any idea about other planes at all, and suspect he is perfectly satisfied with this one. What he wants to find here is the protyle atom, this is plain.
But what can even he or any one else know of atoms, something that no one has ever seen. What is an atom to scientists but another “working hypothesis” added to all the rest? Do you know, Dr. Williams?
Dr. Williams: No, indeed I do not.
Mme. Blavatsky: But, as a chemist, you must know what they mean by it?
Mr. Kingsland: It is a convenient definition of what they think it.
Mme. Blavatsky: But surely they must have come now to the conclusion that it is no convenient definition, no more than their elements are.
They speak about some sixty or seventy elements, and laugh at the old honest nomenclature of the four and five elements of the ancients, and yet where are their own elements?
Mr. Crookes has come to the conclusion that strictly speaking there is no such thing known as a chemical element. They have never arrived yet at a simple or single molecule, least of all, at an atom. What is it then?
Mr. Kingsland: An atom is a convenient term to divide up a molecule.
Mme. Blavatsky: If it is convenient to them I have no objection to it. You call also iron an element, don’t you?
Mr. Ashton Ellis: I think we ought never to forget that it is called the atomic theory. It has never been claimed as anything more.
Mme. Blavatsky: Aye, but even the word “theory” is now used in a wrong sense, by the modern schools, as shown by Sir W. Hamilton (Scottish metaphysician).
Why should they, once they laugh at metaphysics, use a purely metaphysical term when applying it to physical science? And there are those to whom the theory and axiom mean the same thing.
So long as their pet theory is not today upset – which happens more often than the leap year – they regard it as an axiom; and woe to him, who dares doubt or even touch it, outside the sacred precincts of the fanes of science!”
H. P. Blavatsky