stanza 2, slokas 1-2

STANZA II.
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:  But you are not really answering my objection. There may be a man here and there who has this intuition, but the ordinary mortals who treat of our political economy, and our methods of improving our dwellings and all the rest of it, how can they obtain the knowledge of these particulars, when they have practically no idea of universals?

 
The Chairman:  It seems to me that the real objection to the lines adopted by modern science lies in the fact that in every case when they make a so-called discovery, they jump at it. They go along way ahead and argue downwards, and they are very often completely wrong.

 
What I mean is this, most of their detail work comes after the idea of their main scheme has occurred to them, and they then make the details fit in if they won’t do so of themselves. Instead of taking the logical test and commencing with universals and then seeing if it agrees with the particulars, they work backwards and they make the particulars agree with the false conception, and they won’t permit anybody to start a little higher up and argue down to them, and according to their particulars. That is really why occultism and science are at loggerheads.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  The thing that they say is: “Oh! look at science; everything they have said is perfectly correct. Everything is brought there and the cases are shown and so on and they are dovetailed together” – I say because they are syllogisms.

 
They began, if you please, by inventing a proposition; they will come to the conclusion that it is dovetailed, but it is not. That the first proposition is the correct one. It may be anything. I may come and say: “a horse has the head of a serpent, therefore all horses are with serpent’s heads”, and it would be a scientific proposition because I put it myself, which is perfectly incorrect.”

 

H. P. Blavatsky

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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