Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge of the Theosophical Society. Discussions on the stanzas of the first volume of The secret doctrine

...is nothing else and must exist whether the Universe is an absolute vacuum or a full Pleroma a Greek term meaning "fullness," used in Gnosticism to describe the totality of divine powers.

Q. Modern philosophers have reduced it to the idea that space and time are merely attributes or accidental properties.

A. And they would be right, if their reduction were the result of true science instead of being the result of Avidya ignorance and Maya illusion. We also find Buddha saying that even Nirvana, after all, is but Maya or an illusion; but the Lord Buddha based what he said on knowledge, not speculation.

Q. But are eternal Space and Duration the only attributes of the Infinite?

A. Space and Duration, being eternal, cannot be called attributes, as they are only aspects of that Infinite. Nor can that Infinite—if you mean by it the Absolute Principle—possess any attributes at all, since only that which is finite and conditioned can relate to something else. All this [the previous assumption] is philosophically incorrect.

Q. We can conceive of no matter which is not extended, and no extension which is not the extension of something. Is it the same on higher planes? And if so, what is the substance which fills absolute space, and is it identical with that space?

A. If your "trained intellect" cannot conceive of any other kind of matter, perhaps one less trained but more open to spiritual perceptions can. It does not follow that because you say so, your conception of Space is the only one possible, even on our Earth. For even on this plane of ours, there are various other intellects besides those of humans—in creatures visible and invisible, from the minds of high and low subjective beings to objective animals and the lowest organisms; in short, "from the Deva a celestial being or deity to the elephant, and from the elemental to the ant." Now, in relation to its own plane of conception and perception, the ant has an intellect as good as our own, or even better; for though it cannot express it in words, the ant shows very high reasoning powers over and above instinct, as we all know. Thus, finding so many varied states of consciousness and intelligence on our own plane—if we trust the teachings of Occultism—we have no right to consider only our own human consciousness as though no other existed outside of it. And if we cannot presume to decide how far insect consciousness goes, how can we limit consciousness, of which Science knows nothing, only to this plane?

Q. But why not? Surely natural science can discover everything worth knowing, even about the ant?