Movement is animation. Movement is time; no movement no time (but it was was movement that came first, along with stuff that didn’t move, if any). Movement is space; radiation does not happen in space; it is space. What’s beyond space? Empty space? No, for no space is nothing, and so is not there.
What is nothing? I learned the following trick from Farsight: here’s nothing. Did you get it? Or know it in any way. Here it is again. Where? Nowhere. ‘Nothing’ has no properties whatsoever. It is only the absence of something, like a hole in space or a donut. It can be looked at as separating things, but, take away the things and it’s still nothing, that is, not there.
Now, into the labyrinth of thoughts, where one can imagine what is, and ‘know; what it is because one imagined it; some even go on to use it as if the idea were there as a thing:
Were Adam and Eve made fully formed rather than by evolution? Doesn’t seem so but in legend.
Is the Big Guy (if E is) bad, a strict father type figure, good, all good and loving, vengeful, or indifferent? Is E a theity or a Deity? Is E like a person? Is E not like a person? Who knows, for we can only imagine various ‘possibilities’?
Is the Big Guy just an Alien? Who knows?
Does E want us to get rid of ego that E put there? Who knows?
Does E want us to get rid of ego that E didn’t put there? Who knows?
Are Allah’s and Mohammed’s teachings of the right stuff?
Did Krishna get it right?
Why were dinosaurs here for 650 million years?
Is the earth only 4000 years old?
Are there Angels and a Devil, with perhaps some sub-devils?
Did the other religions’ prophets get the right scoop, one or some of them?
Should I live my life based on anything other than we are presented with?
Does martyrdom get me to a higher Heaven?
Is life a test?
Are cows sacred?
How come the Creator violated some of Hiser’s own commandments?
Do I peek into Heaven when I almost die?
Should I shun worldly possessions?
Did Somebody really send a plague of locusts?
Why do ‘forbidden’ thoughts appear in me out of the blue?
Is everything an illusion?
Is ‘faith’ another magic psychological word answer for instantly trusting the unseeable unknown as trustworthy?
(endless list of other imaginations not included here so as to conserve trees)
Further questions of humanity and our nature:
What does the above long and assorted list of ways of living and thinking tell us in and of itself? That is, why such variations of thought? And what does that imply?
Why do some humans think they are ‘special’, via an Intent, above and beyond all 30-50 million species?
What does ‘can’t know all’ suggest as a way of life?
Why does human nature cause some to stop all further thinking when the common name of the Big Guy is proclaimed as the final answer to all wonderings of what is?
Finally, but really foremost,
what is the psychological process
that goes from feeling special
to considering the ‘possible’
to a maybe
to it’s likely
to it is so
to it has these certain qualities
to it has this actual purpose
to I must preach it
to getting upset that other contrary beliefs
can flourish in the face of mine
To getting irrational,
to going to war over this
and other differences of cultures,
Thank you for digging all this out from quite deep and putting it in a Big Guy proze. You hit many truthful note, augmented with unanswerable questions that others (but in some sense we, too) feel the need to answer.
I would sum it up with: if the divine exists, then we have the divine in ourselves. To find the definitive answer to the question whether the divine exists is like chasing our own tail that fell off a few ancestors ago.
To find god as a separate entity does not make sense, because the creation must be made of something, so if there is a god then the creation must be made from god. And if god took parts of godself to create creation then god cannot be perfect anymore (except occasionally within creation). And if we are created in the image of god then we should not consider ourselves as perfect (except when aiming for the perfect excercise of ourselves and the perfect execution for ourselves and others).
Singularity is the perfect answer. It does not exist as such, yet a singular reason, such as reaching the limits of the previous state, can have caused our current state to come into existence.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I do not like to talk about private stuff on this website, Austin; it wouldn't be private anymore.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
It seems to me that to either agree or disagree ... IT is Im_material.
''WE'' all quite naturally want to be right, because every single one of us holds the ''truth'' in our being.
Which only proves and Re-enforces ''my'' belief in total Singularity Oneness and Unity.
Within all of this is ''Entanglement''
So Now! ...... What are you waiting for? Let The unraveling begin.
= TOE
It took me a few days to catch up reading all posts, therefore here a belated reply, Melanie. Thanks for the images and text.
Make certain you leave me intact at the highest level of abstraction; after all, that is the level that is always peaceful. I'll leave you intact there, too. It is OK to disagree on the level right below the abstract, such as you stating that you feel enforced in your belief of total Singularity Oneness and Unity. I feel it the opposite way, that it enforces the idea that diversity exists on all levels.
"Let the Unraveling begin"
I am doing my best, Melanie, but you too may find my reasoning of a low linguistic level (where according to me most concepts are mixed up to such an entangled level that they become almost unrecognizable). It is difficult to point out almost unimportant stuff and have the other person grasp it, let alone if these other persons are scientists of a very high level. I will use the unimportant stuff, language, from you as an example to show how difficult it is to address this issue inside scientists' minds.
Within one sentence you use the words 'proves' and 'belief.' Unimportant language stuff: these two words are not immediately linked. A belief does not require any proof. A belief can already be complete the moment it is pronounced. The only regrettable part to beliefs is that proofs and evidence can chip away parts of the belief, and sometimes completely eliminate the belief. So, while not required to be supported by science, science can (partially) undermine a belief. This happened when evidence was delivered that the earth wasn't flat. The evidence did not dim the belief, but it made the belief more specific, for we weren't on a divine stage anymore with everything else as assets to that stage. Now, if we are on a divine stage, then everything else is a divine stage as well. And that was truly a big change!
If you ask me, there is no undermining possible the other way around, from a belief to science. Yet scientists may not be aware that they can believe something to be natural and normal and not ask themselves if that is true. Beliefs inside science are then more like Trojan Horses. The scientists are captured, but they don't know they are captured by a belief. To make scientists aware that they are believers is even harder than explaining a religious person that a belief is not based on (just the) facts. And with rejection a big tool in science always within reach, if I bring my language explanations, they just laugh off any scientific interest they may have had.
The words are quite simple, but it is difficult to bring this inside someone else's head, especially when they (the scientists) accept it already as true: It is okay to believe in unity, but in science nothing is true unless proven or sustained in a theory.
So, no unraveling, Melanie, unless I find enough people that can support and propagate this position that in science there is no overall unification.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
It took me a few days to catch up reading all posts, therefore here a belated reply, Melanie. Thanks for the images and text.
Hi Fredrick.
Thanking-you too for your reply.
Quote:
Fredrick:
Make certain you leave me intact at the highest level of abstraction; after all, that is the level that is always peaceful.
I'll leave you intact there, too.
Thanks fredrick, although i would say nothing in reality is either abstract nor otherwise.
Quote:
Fredrick:
It is OK to disagree on the level right below the abstract, such as you stating that you feel enforced in your belief of total Singularity Oneness and Unity.
I feel it the opposite way, that it enforces the idea that diversity exists on all levels.
I agree that diversity exists within every-thing that arises.
Quote:
Fredrick:
Within one sentence you use the words 'proves' and 'belief.' Unimportant language stuff: these two words are not immediately linked.
A belief does not require any proof.
A belief can already be complete the moment it is pronounced.
I agree, the words are not immediately linked.
A 'belief' is something one accepts as true or real a firmly held opinion.
whereas 'proves' can mean any number of things for example to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
Any yes i placed these two words in my written text out of Con_text.
Apologies for my Grammar,
it has never been a strong quality of mine.
I did not listen to my teachers too well,
i was always more interested in listening to silence.
I learned more from doing that.
Quote:
Fredrick:
The words are quite simple, but it is difficult to bring this inside someone else's head, especially when they (the scientists)
accept it already as true:
It is okay to believe in unity,
but in science nothing is true unless proven or sustained in a theory.
I agree, that nothing is true unless proven by theory.[relatively speaking]
For example we need to prove water is wet by jumping in it and experiencing that proof. We are the experiencing of this uni-verse.
But in reality nothing needs to be proven.
Because no matter what you think, the universe says you're right,
and that's why we always want to prove we are right.
Not only are we all connected, but through countless experiments designed to put the building blocks of the universe through every possible scenario,
we now know we are always right.
No matter what we think our circumstances are,
our assumption is correct because energy is going to make us right by picking up on those thoughts
we hold on to for dear life and playing them right back at us as our reality.
We create our own realities, as co-creators of the uni_verse.
Wallace Wattles wrote,
"Original Substance moves according to its thoughts"
Every form and process you see in nature is the visible expression of a thought in Original Substance.
As the Formless Stuff thinks of a form, it takes that form,
as it thinks of a motion, it makes that motion.
That is the way all things were created.
We live in a thought world, which is part of a thought universe.
The thought of a moving universe extended throughout Formless Substance,
and the Thinking Stuff moving according to that thought, took the form of systems of planets, and maintains that form.
Quote:
Fredrick:
So, no unraveling, Melanie, unless I find enough people that can support and propagate this position that in science there is no overall unification.
And scientifically speaking, that is quite right of course.
Namaste.
melanie.
__________________ “ Build a relationship with yourself now so that you will always be accompanied by your best friend.”
[From THE THEOSOPHICAL PATH, October 1924, pages 361-63.]
One of the most misleading words in our vocabulary is surely the
very plain word REALISM, simply because we have no generally
acceptable standard of reality. Perhaps it would be more
accurate to say because our generally accepted standards are too
various. Of these the most popular no doubt would be that of the
senses: it being generally conceded that nothing is real that is
not perceptible to the senses.
But sight is a most important sense, and the air we breathe is
surely a reality; and yet it is not visible. Light and Darkness:
are they unrealities because neither audible nor sensible to
touch or taste? Are our emotions unrealities? If so we pass the
greater part of our existence in a world that is not real. And
if the world we live in is so largely made of unreality what is
to be our standard of reality?
Material objects are endowed with weight, which is not visible,
nor audible, nor can it be smelled nor tasted, no, nor even seen;
yet surely it is real. How can we say that the reality of things
depends upon the testimony of one or more of the senses, seeing
the general disagreement of these witnesses?
If we rely upon our dictionaries we shall say things that are
real are not imaginary, but actually exist quite independent of
the senses that perceive them. But how can we test their actual
existence except by use of the imagination? It is by the
imagination that we coordinate the experience of the senses and
then draw our conclusions. It is the mind that weighs the
evidence for or against the reality of things; and while that
reality may be entirely independent and self-supporting, yet it
can only be known to us by the assistance of our senses or our
mind.
So when we speak of realism we are talking about a mode of mind,
a system of thought, a manner of expression, and a literary or
artistic style that deals with concepts of reality not with
reality itself. All that we ever know about reality is an IDEA,
a mental concept; and so our realism after all is not so very far
removed from its apparent opposite IDEALISM.
The ordinary man conceives of idealism as dealing with
abstractions, fancies, fictions, or pure imagination; while
realism deals with facts. But the idealist thinks otherwise: to
him reality is not material; far from it. To him the ideal is
the revelation of the real. Ideas to him are concepts of
reality, and the entire universe is an expression of ideas
conceived in the eternal mind of Nature, the Great Mother.
The fact that we are all children of one universal mother is the
key to all the baffling problems presented by our social system,
which ignores this fact, and has for its foundation the popular
fallacy of materialism with its twin error "the great dire heresy
of separateness." From these two errors spring "all the ills that
flesh are heir to." From materialism comes the delusion of death
as the end of life, which is a practical denial of the
possibility of evolution or the continuity of consciousness. And
from the fallacy of separateness arises that justification of
human selfishness which finds its ultimate expression in war as
the crown of competition and the last word in the great nightmare
of our so-called civilization.
A civilization based on selfishness can be no better than a
nightmare. Peace cannot be maintained in a society that founds
its life and laws upon the perverted principle known as 'the
struggle for existence.' The Law of Life, the Law of Laws, is
BROTHERHOOD. That is the only possible foundation on which to
build a civilization worthy of the name. The 'struggle for
existence' is a fallacy, a theory invented to excuse the
selfishness of man's lower nature, which is the only troublemaker
in the world. The only struggle is that made by man in his
attempts to get for his own personal enjoyment a greater share of
this world's goods than other men receive. The struggle that
ensues makes life a veritable nightmare.
The world is dreaming a bad dream. Let man awake, and find the
SELF, and end the dream. This is the aim of the idealist, to
stand in presence of reality and know no fear; to see beyond the
illusive forms and appearances of the material world and
recognize the presence and power of spiritual principles at work
behind the veil of matter: to perceive the ideal as the soul of
things, and know that the ideal is the mental image of reality.
When a man understands how very fallible his senses are, how
easily deceived, how subject to suggestion, surely he must admit
that their report amounts to little more than partial evidence of
the external appearance of a reality which lies beyond, a
principle that escapes the clumsy grasp of these uncertain
instruments.
Truly the materialist is utterly incapable of realism. The Real
must be approached through the Ideal. And no one is blinder to
the reality of things than is the self-styled realist who takes
appearance for reality; being deluded by the glamour of the
material plane on which he lives. The attitude of mind of a
materialist who pins his faith to sense-impressions and is
content to look no further for reality is quite unlike that of
the man caught in a fog, sees the fog, and knows that he is lost.
The materialist sees clearly and is quite sure of his position,
but, like a sleepwalker, he is deceived by his own mind and does
not understand that which he sees. So, like a lunatic, he is
convinced of his own sanity, and satisfied that what he sees is
real and what he cannot see nor measure with his senses has no
material existence, and must be therefore a product of
imagination, an unreality. Thus the materialist repudiates the
ideal as delusion or fantasy.
Not so the idealist, the seeker for reality. He would not dare
to call himself a realist, knowing that he as an individual would
lose his individuality if once he touched the flame of Truth and
was absorbed into Reality. He is content to bathe in the
sunshine and to see it everywhere reflected and to know that his
own spark of individuality is but a ray from that same spiritual
Sun. To the true Idealist life is intensely real in spite of its
delusions, for each delusion testifies according to its might to
the Reality that lies behind. THAT is the unspeakable. Only the
VOICE cries "Know thyself!" "Find thou but thyself; thou art I."
[From THE THEOSOPHICAL PATH, October 1924, pages 364-68.]
What are the fundamental conceptions upon which the whole
enormous edifice of science rests? They are clearly evident. Let
us review the different chapters of modern physics, and we shall
immediately find that its field could be divided up into two
quite different parts: one, including questions of mechanics, of
hydrostatics, etc. -- and a multitude of complements referring
to them; the second embracing the phenomena of heat, light, and
electricity; and acoustics, which, strictly speaking, could be
placed in almost any domain of physics.
The principal notions of the first section are: matter with which
we work, and energy which is represented to us as the cause of
the movements of matter.
The second section rests in the same way on the two
above-mentioned bases, but the explanation of these phenomena
necessitates further the introduction of a new conception which
rounds out the theories -- the ether. As a matter of fact, in
order to explain the transmission of undulatory (calorific,
luminous, electric, etc.,) vibrations, a carrier or support was
necessary; also, in order to fill up the interplanetary void with
something, it was necessary to imagine an imponderable agent with
which this void should be full, in order to transmit the luminous
vibrations at least, not to mention others. If we turn to
chemistry, matter and energy meet us everywhere; so that we are
able to say from now on that science is based upon three
fundamental conceptions: (1) Matter, (2) Energy, and (3) Ether.
Let us remember that scientists not satisfied with their
experiments in matter have tried to discover its innermost
structure, to find the laws which the innumerable atoms obey,
which constitute it; they have wished to see, observe, and
scrutinize to the very ultimate depths the secret of its
mysterious origin and the equilibriums which support its
marvelous structures. We shall not occupy ourselves here with
the hypotheses without number which have been raised in order to
solve this mystery; suffice it to say that the primordial atom
formerly held to be indivisible and indestructible during the
last century was divided, and transformed (as is generally known)
into a solar system with a central mass and very small particles
called electrons, which according to certain rules turn round a
central nucleus with a speed of the order of that of light.
The theory about the electron could not satisfy the indefatigable
spirit of the investigators, and hence we have new hypotheses
formulated regarding the structure of the electron itself; it is
conceived of as a whirlwind, a vortex, a cyclone of ether, -- of
this almost immaterial substance, which nevertheless is of a
rigidity greater than that of the hardest steel. All matter has
thus been brought back to this hypothetic ether which is more
indefinite than any other scientific conception.
What then is matter? A whirlwind of ether! It is marvelous! Is
matter then nothing but ether? Certainly, though condensed, it is
after all just ether.
Strange, indeed! In the attempt to prove the inner structure of
matter, which was thought to be the web of the universe, people
came to a quite different conclusion, namely, that matter does
not exist! The object of our reasoning has thus been shown to be
unreal, an illusion, deceptive in the highest degree.
What is matter? But it does not exist! But heavens, replies the
profane, everything that I see, you yourself, Mr. Investigator,
are you not yourself made of matter? I was told yesterday that
everything in the Universe was merely matter and atoms in
movement. -- No. We have just discovered that all is nothing
but condensed ether ruled by 'forces,' and since matter has lost
its individual existence, ether has inherited its attributes.
Marvelous! This is called the deductive method. The hypothesis
is clear and simple, and especially is its principal merit
EXPERIMENTALLY PROVED. Could a more negative conclusion than
this one be arrived at? Let us hear then what a scholar of the
first rank said of this same matter some years ago of this matter
which has just been so ignominiously driven from its throne.
> What is matter? In perfect strictness it is true that chemical
> investigation can tell us nothing directly of the composition of
> living matter, and it is also in strictness true that we know
> nothing about the composition of any material body whatever it
> is.
And now of late the tendency seems to be to disregard these most
true words of Huxley's. He answered that we did not have any
positive knowledge about matter, and today a thousand scientists
are telling us that it is nothing but condensed ether. Good! If
the thing is as simple as that, let them show us this primordial
substance which fills up everything, the interstellar void as
well as the interstices between the atoms of a body. Let us try
to get some information from men who are competent along these
lines, in order to have a more precise idea of this universally
known and respected agent.
The answer to our question will not keep us waiting; I can
already hear it: Ether is imponderable and cannot, as such, be
perceived by any means at our disposal; you want to see it?
Impossible! Nobody has seen it, nobody has felt it; it is an
invisible fluid, like air, by the way, which also is invisible;
the proofs of its existence are so many that no doubt is possible
as to its reality. -- Ah, yes, we reply with some regret; but
can you at least give the definitions of its physical properties,
its attributes, fix the mode of its exact vibration, and describe
it to us with at least some precision?
This is the answer of S. Laing, a writer of some years ago, in
his book entitled MODERN SCIENCE AND MODERN THOUGHT:
> What is ether? Ether is not actually known to us by any test of
> which the senses can take cognizance, but it is a sort of
> mathematical substance which we are compelled to assume in order
> to account for the phenomena of light and heat.
Here we have the ether in all its simplicity: a pure abstraction
and nothing more. From now on we can employ a resume taken from
science itself: Matter is composed of atoms; the atom of the
vortex produced in the ether; hence matter is ether. Ether, on
the other hand, is nothing but a "mathematical substance,"
something on which to base calculations -- a pure abstraction;
hence matter is itself an abstraction. In order to explain the
structure of one fiction -- matter -- another is created a
thousand times more abstract -- ether; the result of which is
really marvelous: two abstractions which explain and complement
each other, and which, after all, certainly do not give us a
positive and experimentally proved answer to the question: What
is the primordial atom?
Science uses facts only and by no means merely abstract notions;
but is it perhaps an irony of the centuries that its deepest
base, its principle axis of rotation, is found to be precisely an
abstraction and one of the most abstract?
Thus the two hypostases of the scientific trinity are
established; their ultra-metaphysical appearance is too obvious
to necessitate any more profound analysis.
Let us turn to energy. Open any manual of physics, especially
one on mechanics, and read the ingenious definitions which you
will find of that mysterious entity called 'energy.' The
inevitable answer to our question, what is energy, is the same
monotonous phrase, which can only make a thinker smile -- that
energy is the cause of movement. Energy is known to us only by
its effects.
Cause or effect define with very little precision the idea of
energy; it is evident that the manuals cannot tell us anything
whatsoever about its essence, still less about its origin. Let
us then turn to the classics of contemporary science; we shall
perhaps there find some interesting passages. In order to quote
only one of them, let us take the course of physics by Ganot; we
shall find there on page 68:
> In mechanics there is actual and potential energy: work actually
> performed and the capacity of performing it. As to the nature of
> molecular energy or forces, the various phenomena which bodies
> present show that their molecules are under the influence of two
> contrary forces -- one which tends to bring them together, the
> other to separate them. The first is molecular attraction; the
> second force is due to the vis viva, or moving force.
Let us then try to find the definition of this vis viva, of which
Ganot speaks. Here we have the brave Huxley who once more pulls
us out of this swamp in which we find ourselves entangled. This
truth-loving man answers us with precision and clarity:
> What is this vis viva? It is an empty shadow, a product of my
> imagination.
And here we have the scientific trinity defined in a rather
original manner. It is true, attested by the most faithful sons
of science:
> I do not know what matter is.
> I do not know what the ether is.
> I have no notion whatsoever about energy.
And now we have the right to estimate the value of this theoretic
foundation, of this basis which resists all external attacks and
which the scientists of the time make it a point of honor to
defend. Contemplate then for a moment this strange metaphysic,
this absolute ignorance out of which they at any price want to
form a system and build a lasting edifice. These are the
refractory bricks with whose help they intend to shelter
themselves against the inclemency of ages to come.
What does this so-called solidity consist of? With its ephemeral
basis, might a sudden puff of wind carry it away? Who then can
show us, in these abstractions which are more abstract than any
others, more nescient than any doctrine previously formulated,
and an authority worthy of our worship?
Men swear all too often by the irrevocably demonstrated
postulates of science; but they fail to notice their fragility,
their artificial vitality, their nullity from the experimental
point of view; they do not see that they are founded on a pure
fiction, on a negation.
By what means do scientists try to explain the universe to us?
The idea of an organic life, or the conception of a living and
animated substance are far away; nothing exists but dead atoms,
material corpuscles which no breath animates, nor any thought
renders fertile, nor any spirit directs; nothing but myriads and
myriads of these mute and withered beings, condemned to turn, to
revolve during the eternity of the ages round an imaginary
center. No life, no soul, in these elements; nothing but matter
darker than ever, more dead than ever; matter governed by
fictitious forces, whose cause is unknown.
Would one say that the whole of the universe wells up from these
overheated alembics, from these tubes curved and re-curved in a
thousand ways, out of these putrefied solutions -- a universe
full of charm, youth, and hope for the future? Would one say that
this marvelous nature, temple of the Supreme Life, is organized
within the four walls of narrow laboratories, among fetid odors,
under the vigilant eye of a rusty chemist? Would one say that man
himself, like the homunculus of Faust, suddenly emerges out of
these colored salts, of these condensed liquids, of these clouds
of vapor, by the imperial gesture of the scientist? Is it dead
matter which creates life, activity, and progressive evolution?
Is it the logic of deductions, three-storied formulae, and
chemical reactions that create intuition? It seems as if
spontaneity itself ought to spring in full vigor from the bosom
of mathematical calculations!
They who prostrate themselves before the grandeur of exact
science, do they not see that they adore a holy trinity
consisting of dead matter, inanimate force, and pure chance?
Exact science, that science which denies the existence of
abstractions within the heart of its own being, that science,
finally, which does not and will not recognize anything but
certain and known quantities, is itself found to rest on such a
fantastic basis, such a legendary foundation. Very singular
indeed! Listen then to these few words, the truth of which is
only too evident:
> The whole structure of modern science is built on a kind of
> 'mathematical abstraction,' on a Protean substance which eludes
> the senses, and on EFFECTS, the shadows of a SOMETHING entirely
> unknown to and beyond the reach of science; self-moving atoms!
> Self-moving suns, planets, and stars!
>
> -- The Secret Doctrine, by H. P. Blavatsky
This is pure truth. Noble-minded scientific researchers yearn to
know and hope to know, but, what a prodigious distance yet
separates them from the final and sublime knowledge of the law of
Eternal Nature!
What an unnecessary postulate to start from, this 'mystery of
existence'! Why all this 'mystery'? There is none; all is there,
manifested and calculated.
However, in spite of the 'mystery' which surrounds it, in spite
of the incertitude which it seems to meet at every step, in spite
of the futility and the incoherence of most of its hypotheses,
the science of our days finds itself closer than ever to the
eternal truth, revealed in days of old by the wise men of
antiquity. The consistency with which it has constantly rejected
the idea of a living principle, pulsating in every atom, now ends
only in this: to show that MATTER, ENERGY, AND ETHER ARE ONLY
DIFFERENT MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SAME PRIMORDIAL ESSENCE, WHICH
FORMS THE WEB OF THE UNIVERSE.
For science today tries to formulate Theosophical doctrines; it
whispers already the words of the Archaic Wisdom. Only a few
more steps and it will penetrate to the outer arcana of the
universe, where the breath of the spirit is felt; and then
endlessly step after step towards wider and deeper knowledge of
the Great ALL, origin and end of the stellar evolutions, in which
depths there hides the mystery of life.
THE GODS
By Kenneth Morris
[From THE THEOSOPHICAL PATH, October 1924, page 321, captioned
"International Theosophical Headquarters, Point Loma,
California."]
Whether proceeding from the luminance of the Evening Star,
Or arisen from the blossom of God's blue rose the Sea,
Innumerable and very noble the Princes of Beauty are,
In whose hearts we are held unfallen, in whose will we are free.
Some plumy willowy spirit, accustomed to thrill
Wingless from Canopus to the Dragon that guards the Pole,
Fluted thee into being, O my lady the daffodil, --
Or kindled the flame thy bloom with the star her Soul.
And there is no pansy, but Aeons aglow in the gloom
Of purple and ink-dark skies, and their wings on fire,
Sang: -- no iris, nor rose nor hyacinth bloom
But was born of a gust of song from the Starry Choir.
If I go up into the mountains, to the blue crags, I shall find
The ancient healing beauty in the ways untrod;
If I rise from the worn tracks of the heart and mind
Shall I not commune with the Dragon Hosts of God?
“ Build a relationship with yourself now so that you will always be accompanied by your best friend.” 
Linear Mode
