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

Hylo-Idealists A 19th-century philosophical movement combining materialism and idealism, suggesting that the universe is a product of the mind's interaction with matter hardly share this opinion, for in their system the metaphysical meaning is entirely disregarded and lost.

Q. Then perhaps, after all, Laya a state of zero point or neutral equilibrium is the best term to use?

A. Not necessarily, for Laya does not refer to any specific object or some plane or another, but denotes a state or condition. It is a Sanskrit term conveying the idea of an undifferentiated and changeless state—a zero point where all differentiation ceases.

Q. The first differentiation would represent matter on its seventh plane; must we not, therefore, suppose that Professor Crookes' Protyle a theoretical primary substance from which chemical elements were thought to evolve is also matter on its seventh plane?

A. The ideal Protyle of Professor Crookes is matter in that state which he calls the "zero-point."

Q. That is to say, the Laya point of this plane?

A. It is not at all clear whether Professor Crookes is concerned with other planes or even admits their existence. The object of his search is the "protylic" atom, which, as no one has ever seen it, is simply a new working hypothesis of Science. For what, in reality, is an atom?

Q. It is a convenient definition of what is supposed to exist, or rather, a convenient term to divide a molecule.

A. But surely they must have realized by now that the "atom" is no more a convenient term than the supposed seventy-odd elements. It has been the custom to laugh at the four and five elements of the ancients; but now Professor Crookes has concluded that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a chemical element at all. In fact, far from discovering the atom, a single simple molecule has not yet been reached.

Q. It should be remembered that Dalton, who first spoke on the subject, called it the "Atomic Theory."

A. Quite so; but, as shown by Sir William Hamilton, the term is used in an erroneous sense by modern schools of science. While they laugh at metaphysics, they apply a purely metaphysical term to physics, so that nowadays "theory" begins to take over the authority of "axiom."

Q. What are the "Seven Eternities," and how can there be such a division in Pralaya a period of cosmic rest or dissolution when there is no one present to be conscious of time?

A. The modern astronomer knows the "ordinances of Heaven" no better than his ancient brother did. If asked whether he could "bring forth Mazzaroth the constellations of the Zodiac in his season," or if he was with "him" who

"spread out the sky," he would have to answer sadly in the negative, just as Job did. Yet this in no way prevents him from speculating about the age of the Sun, Moon, and Earth, and "calculating" geological periods from a time when there was not a living human, with or without consciousness, on earth. Why, therefore, should the same privilege not be granted to the ancients?

Q. But why should the term "Seven Eternities" be used?

A. The term "Seven Eternities" is used because of the invariable law of analogy. Just as a Manvantara a period of cosmic manifestation or activity is divided into seven periods, so is Pralaya; as the day is composed of twelve hours, so is the night. Can we say that because we are asleep during the night and lose consciousness of time, the hours do not strike? Pralaya is the "Night" after the Manvantaric "Day." There is no observer present, and consciousness is asleep along with everything else. But since consciousness exists and is in full activity during the Manvantara, and since we are fully aware that the laws of analogy and periodicity are unchangeable—acting equally at both ends of a cycle—why should the phrase not be used?

Q. But how can an eternity be counted?

A. Perhaps this question arises due to a general misunderstanding of the word "Eternity." We in the West are foolish enough to speculate about things that have neither beginning nor end, and we imagine that the ancients must have done the same. They did not, however. No philosopher in the old days ever took "Eternity" to mean duration without beginning or end. Neither the Aeons of the Greeks nor the Naroses cycles of time, specifically the Naros of 600 years carry this meaning. In fact, they had no word to convey that precise sense. Parabrahm, Ain-Soph, and the Zeruana-Akerne the "Boundless Time" of the Zoroastrian Avesta of the Avesta alone represent such an Eternity. All other periods are finite and astronomical, based on tropical years and other enormous cycles. The word "Aeon," which in the Bible is translated as "Eternity," means not only a finite period but also an angel or a being.

Q. But is it correct to say that during Pralaya there is also the "Great Breath"?

A. Certainly; for the "Great Breath" is ceaseless and is, so to speak, the universal and eternal perpetuum mobile original: "perpetuum mobile"; Latin: perpetual motion.

Q. If so, it is impossible to divide it into periods, for doing so eliminates the idea of absolute and complete nothingness. It seems somewhat contradictory to speak of a "number" of periods, although one might speak of many out-breathings and in-drawings of the "Great Breath."