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. B. Keightley: You take a man like Huxley. The first thing he will say is: “I know that that is not so.” You say to him anything – that, for instance, in every material thing we see there is a psychic side; in another way, that the thing exists on a different plane of consciousness. He will say, “I know that is not so” before you have got the words out of your mouth, almost.
Mme. Blavatsky: There is a man of science – and he is a great man of science in America – who pitches into me in the American. (probably Scientific American). He says it is all chaos, and he goes on and he is obliged to say: “Yes, it is true, but why does she show such animus to the men of science, if she quotes them?”
But I quote them just to break their heads with the weapons furnished by the older men of science. He sends to us the most stupid things. He sends his journal in which he speaks about it. Some men of science who write in the journal wanted, it may be, that I should be exposed, but they only showed their own ignorance.
Mr. A. Keightley: Does not the difference between the men of science who talk about the particulars and you who talk about universals consist in this : that the man of science, as a general rule, depends purely upon his reason and his observation to deal with the facts of his physical consciousness?
The practice of working from universals depends upon the intuition, which proceeds from a higher plane of consciousness, but as the man of science declines to admit anything but that which he can touch with his physical senses, he will insist on negativing anything else.
Mme. Blavatsky: He steps off from the platform of agnosticism. which is perfectly his right, but he has no right to come and dogmatize on his own plane of matter.
If he said: “It is not the province of physical science to go beyond physicals; it may be, or it may not be on the physical; to every appearance it is so and so”, then we should say: “Very, well; we bow to you; you are a very great man; you find every faculty in the hind leg of a frog, and all sorts of things”; but why does he say: “There is nothing behind that”, and everyone who comes and says beyond that there is knowledge he will come and pitch into?
Mind you, I had a very great respect for science when I was in my green age, between twenty and thirty. The men of science were then my gods.”
H. P. Blavatsky