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.

 

“Dr. Williams:  I do not think the great representative men of science take that ground. They did in the past, and there are some who occupy a lower sphere who do today. Spencer for instance, whenever he is brought face to face with {a} thing which may be true or not true simply says, “it may be.”

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  But you take the best of them. He certainly is one of the greatest intellects; I do not mean to say at all because he says something flapdoodle somewhere that he is not a great man of science – he is. But when you say that Huxley does this thing or Tyndall, or when yous say any fellow of the Royal Society, I say no, I have seen a good many of them, and with the exception of Crookes and of Wallace I never found one who would not call the other madman.

 
Do you suppose the others do not call Crookes a madman? They say: “He is cracked on one point.” So they say about Wallace. Have they the right to say that of such a man of science, that he is cracked because he believes in things beyond matter? They have no such right at all.

 
Dr. Williams:  I do not know what the smaller men say because I never care to read what they write.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Look at Huxley; look at the tone of regret he adopts. Didn’t they say that Zollner died a madman? Look at the French scientists, they all said he did. All the Germans say the same: “Softening of the brain.” “He died in consequence of the fact that he happened to believe in the phenomenal form.”

 
Mr. Kingsland:  But that is something like blaming a schoolboy for not applying the calculus.

 
The Chairman:  That is equivalent to saying that the scientists are deficient in principles.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  They are only that because they choose to make themselves so, and they choose deliberately to be dogmatic.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  The best of them do not deal in dogmatic negatives.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  I do not know. Look at Huxley and such men. They deal greatly in dogmatic negatives. I do not call Tyndall a very great man of science. He is a populizer and a compiler. I call Huxley a great man of science, and there is not one more bitter than Huxley, not one.

 
(These remarks closed the proceedings)”

 
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