stanza 2, slokas 1-2

1. . . . Where were the builders, the luminous sons of Manvantaric dawn? . . . In the unknown darkness in their Ah-hi Paranishpanna. The producers of form from no-form—the root of the world—the Devamatri and Svâbhâvat, rested in the bliss of non-being.
2. . . . Where was silence? Where the ears to sense it? No, there was neither silence nor sound; naught save ceaseless eternal breath, which knows itself not.

“Mr. Kingsland:  How can you, by getting a something which is hypo-hypothetical, so to speak, arrive at more knowledge by working on what you do not know?

Mme. Blavatsky:  You don’t work on your own inventions, you work on the wisdom of the ages, and if during these 100,000 years or so all the men of the best intellects said all the same and found out this, and their adepts and their wise men said the same thing over and over again, there must be more truth in that than in the speculations of the few.

Mr. B. Keightley:  I think the position is summed up in this way. Physical science is –

Mme. Blavatsky:  Nothing but a conceit.

Mr. B. Keightley:  The whole basis of occultism lies in this, that there is latent within every man a power which can give him true knowledge, a power of perception of truth, which enables him to deal first hand with universals, if he will be strictly logical and face the facts and not juggle with words.

This he can truly proceed from universals to particulars by the effect of the innate spiritual power which is in every man, and with certainty, not as hypothesis. It is a hypothesis only as regards our physical senses.

Mr. Kingsland:  But how is he to get at that except through initiation?

The Chairman:  A man has consciousness, or has not.

Mme. Blavatsky:  He has it inherent in him, it is simply the method of your education together with these ideas that they took into their heads “that we will not proceed in such a way, that we will take the Aristotelian method and the Baconian method, and there never was a man in antiquity who was capable or worthy of untying our shoestrings.” And therefore you see they do take one hypothesis after the other.

There is not a single thing that will be said in science that is not purely hypothetical. From your Sir William Thomson, who said of something: “I have come to the conclusion that it does not exist more than 50,000,000 years ago”, and then said: “I am of opinion it existed 80,000,000 {years} ago.” Between 80 and 50,000,000 there is a difference.

Huxley goes and says a certain thing takes 1000 years; another one will go and say something else, while another says, “I am not disposed to admit such a thing.”
Why, my dear sir, Plato was a match for anyone of your greatest philosophers of the day. Such sages as Plato – I don’t speak about Socrates, but I think Plato could beat all the Schopenhauers, and Hubert Spencers, and Hartmanns and all the tutti quanti that the nineteenth century is so proud of.

And if he proved that you could not get at knowledge unless you began from universals and speculated down to particulars, and found the thing on the terrestrial plane, I suppose he was more right than you are.

We had intelligence, we had knowledge, and we had most extraordinary knowledge before. What have we got now?”


H. P. Blavatsky

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s