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 in this way whether the Universe is one absolute vacuum or a full Pleroma the totality of divine powers; the "fullness" of the spiritual world.

Q. Modern Philosophers have reduced it to this: that space and time are nothing but attributes, nothing but accidents.

A. And they would be right, if their reduction were the fruit of true science instead of being the result of Avidya spiritual ignorance and Maya illusion. We also find Buddha saying that even Nirvâna the state of liberation from suffering and the cycle of rebirth, 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 the aspects of that Infinite. Nor can that Infinite—if you mean by it the Absolute Principle—have any attributes whatever, as only that which is itself finite and conditioned can have any relation to something else. All of this is philosophically wrong.

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, simply because you say so, that such a conception of Space is the only one possible, even on our Earth. For even on this plane of ours, there are other and various intellects besides those of man, in creatures both 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, 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, yet beyond instinct, the ant shows very high reasoning powers, as we all know. Thus, finding on our own plane—if we trust the teachings of Occultism—so many and such varied states of consciousness and intelligence, we have no right to account only for 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—to this plane?

Q. But why not? Surely natural science can discover all that has to be discovered, even in the ant?

---

A. Such is your view; to the occultist, however, such confidence is misplaced, in spite of Sir John Lubbock's a prominent 19th-century biologist known for studying ants labors. Science may speculate, but with its present methods, it will never be able to prove the certainty of such speculations. If a scientist could become an ant for a while, and think as an ant, and remember his experience on returning to his own sphere of consciousness, then only would he know something for certain about this interesting insect. As it is, he can only speculate, making inferences from the ant's behavior.

Q. The ant's conception of time and space are not our own, then. Is it this that you mean?

A. Precisely; the ant has conceptions of time and space which are its own, not ours; these are conceptions which exist entirely on another plane. We have, therefore, no right to deny from the start original: "à priori" the existence of other planes only because we can form no idea of them; they exist nevertheless—planes higher and lower than our own by many degrees, as the ant witnesses.

Q. The difference between the animal and man from this point of view seems to be that the animal is born more or less with all its faculties and, generally speaking, does not gain much beyond this, while man is gradually learning and improving. Is not that really the point?

A. Just so; but you have to remember why: it is not because man has one "principle" more than the tiniest insect, but because man is a perfected animal, the vehicle of a fully developed monad the eternal, indivisible spiritual essence of an individual which is self-conscious and deliberately following its own line of progress. In the insect, and even the higher animal, the higher triad of principles is absolutely dormant.

Q. Is there any consciousness, or conscious being, to perceive and make a division of time at the first movement of manifestation? In his Lecture on the Bhagavat Gita, Mr. Subba Row, in speaking of the First Logos, seems to imply both consciousness and intelligence.

A. But he did not explain which Logos the creative "Word" or first manifested deity was referred to, and I believe he spoke in general terms. In Esoteric Philosophy, the First is the unmanifested, and the Second the manifested Logos. Iswara the personal God or Supreme Lord in Hindu philosophy stands for that Second, and Narâyana the supreme being who moves on the waters for the unmanifested Logos. Subba Row is an Adwaitee a follower of Advaita Vedanta, a school of non-dualism and a learned Vedantin, and he explained from his standpoint. We do so from ours. In the Secret Doctrine, that from which the manifested Logos is born is translated as the "Eternal Mother-Father"; while in the Vishnu Purâna it is described as the Egg of the World, surrounded by seven skins, layers or zones. It is in this Golden Egg