WHICH IS VAGUE, THEOSOPHY
OR SCIENCE?
IT is commonly charged against the exponents of Theosophy
that they deal in vague generalities only. A lecture is given
or paper read by a Theosophist, and the profane hearer laughs,
saying, "All this is metaphysical absurdity; these are mere
abstractions; let us have something like that which science gives
us, something we can grasp."
A great many persons imagine, knowing but little in reality
about science, that it is sure, certain, and fixed in the vital
premises which underlie the practical outcome seen in many branches
of lifes activity. Why is this so? An inquiry into the question
discloses the fact that some, if not all, the basic postulates
of science are the purest abstractions, and that many statements
from which deductions of fact are drawn are themselves the merest
hypotheses. We will also find that the commonest of people unconsciously
use in every work-a-day acts the most abstract and indefinite
premises without which they could do but little.
Take navigation of the ocean, by which we are able to send
the largest ships carrying the richest of cargoes from shore
to shore of any sea. These are guided in their course by men
who know little or nothing of Theosophy and who would laugh at
metaphysics. But in order to safely carry the ship from departure
to destination, they have to use the lines of longitude and latitude,
which, while seeming very real to them, have no existence whatever,
except in theory. These lines must be used, and, if not, the
ship will strike a rock or run upon the shore. Where are the
parallels of longitude and latitude? They are imagined to be
on the earth, but their only visible existence is upon the chart
made by man, and their real existence is in the mind of the astronomer
and those who understand the science of navigation. The sea captain
may think they are on the chart, or he may not think of it at
all. Where do they stop? Nowhere; they are said to extend indefinitely
into space; yet these abstractions are used for present human
commercial needs. Is this any less vague than Theosophy?
In the latter we have to guide the great human ship from shore
to shore, and in that immense journey are obliged to refer to
abstractions from which to start. Our spiritual parallels of
latitude and longitude are abstractions, indeed, but no more
so than those laid down upon the seamans chart. The scientific
materialist says: "What nonsense to speak of coming out
of the Absolute!" We may reply, "What nonsense for
the mariner to attempt to guide his ship by that which has no
existence whatever, except in fancy; by that which is a pure
abstraction!" Again he laughs at us for assuming that there
is such a thing as the soul, "for," he says, "no
man has ever seen it, and none ever can; it cannot be demonstrated."
With perfect truth we can reply: "Where is the atom of science;
who has ever seen it; where and when has its existence been demonstrated?"
The "atom" of science is today as great a mystery as
the "soul" of Theosophy. It is a pure hypothesis, undemonstrated
and undemonstrable. It can neither be weighed, nor measured,
nor found with a microscope: indeed, in the opinion of many Theosophists
it is a far greater mystery than the soul, because some say they
have seen that which may be soul; which looks like it; and no
man has been, at any time, so fortunate or unfortunate as to
have seen an atom.
Further, the scientific materialist says, "What do you
know about the powers of the soul, which you say is the central
sun of the human system?" And we answer that "it is
no more indefinite for us than the sun is for the astronomers
who attempt to measure its heat and estimate its distance. As
to the heat of the sun, not all are agreed that it has any heat
whatever, for some learned men think that it is a source of an
energy which creates heat when it reaches the earths atmosphere
only. Others, celebrated in the records of science, such as Newton,
Fizeau, and many other well-known astronomers, disagree as to
the quantity of heat thrown out by the sun, on the hypothesis
that it has any heat, and that difference is so great as to reach
8,998,600 degrees. Thus as to the central sun of this system,
there is the greatest vagueness in science and no agreement as
to what may be the truth in this important matter. In Theosophy,
however, on the other hand, although there is some vagueness
with mere students as to the exact quantity of heat or light
thrown out by the soul, those who have devoted more time to its
study are able to give closer estimates than any which have been
given by scientific men in respect to the sun of the solar system.
Yet all these generalities of science are the very things that
have led to the present wonderful material development of the
nineteenth century.
But let us glance for a moment at the subject of evolution,
which engages the thought of materialist and theosophist alike;
let us see if theosophy is more vague than its opponents, or
more insane, we might say, in ability to lay wild theories before
intelligent men. The well-known Haeckel in his Pedigree of
Man says, in speaking of Darwins teachings and lauding them:
"Darwin puts in the place of a conscious creative force,
building and arranging the organic bodies of animals and plants
on a designed plan, a series of natural forces working blindly,
or we say, without aim, without design. In place
of an arbitrary act we have a necessary law of evolution. . .
. A mechanical origin of the earliest living form was
held as the necessary sequence of Darwins teaching." Here
we have blind, undesigning forces, beginning work without design,
haphazard, all being jumbled together, but finally working out
into a beautiful design visible in the smallest form we can see.
There is not a single proof in present life whether mineral,
vegetable, or animal, that such a result from such a beginning
could by any possibility eventuate. But these scientific men
in those matters are safe in making hypotheses, because the time
is far in the dark of history when these blind, undesigning
acts were begun. Yet they ought to show some present instances
of similar blindness producing harmonious designs. Now is this
not a wild, fanciful, and almost insane statement of Haeckel's?
Is it not ten times more absurd than theosophical teachings?
We begin truly with Parabrahmam and Mulaprakriti and Hosts of
Dhyan Chohans, but we allege design in everything, and our Parabrahmam
is no more vague than motion or force, pets of science.
So I have found that a slight examination of this question
reveals science as more vague than Theosophy is in anything.
But some may say results are not indefinite. The same is said
by us, the results to be reached by following the doctrines of
theosophy, relating, as they do, to our real life, will be as
definite, as visible, as important as any that science can point
to.
EUSEBIO URBAN
Path, November, 1890
Theosophy.org Home | up
| top |