Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
15,652
edits
HPB-SD(ed.1) v.1 p.3 sec.4: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{HPB-SD-header | volume = 1 | part = 3 | section = 4 | section title = Is Gravitation a Law? | previous = v.1 p.3 sec.3 | next = v.1 p.3 sec.5 | edition = ed.1 }}...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
{{Page|492|the secret doctrine.}} | {{Page|492|the secret doctrine.}} | ||
{{Style P-No indent|their Principles — transcendental or spiritual Elements ; from those of the great Alchemists, who, like Paracelsus, made a great difference between phenomenon and its cause, or the Noumenon ; and Grove, who, though he sees “ no reason to divest universally diffused matter of the ''functions ''common to all matter,” yet uses the term ''Forces ''where his critics, “ who do not attach to the word any idea of a ''specific action'',” say Force — from those days to this nothing has proved competent to stem the tide of brutal materialism. Gravitation ''is the sole cause'', the acting God, and matter is its prophet, said the men of science only a few years ago.}} | {{Style P-No indent|their {{Style S-Small capitals|Principles}} — transcendental or spiritual Elements ; from those of the great Alchemists, who, like Paracelsus, made a great difference between phenomenon and its cause, or the Noumenon ; and Grove, who, though he sees “ no reason to divest universally diffused matter of the ''functions ''common to all matter,” yet uses the term ''Forces ''where his critics, “ who do not attach to the word any idea of a ''specific action'',” say Force — from those days to this nothing has proved competent to stem the tide of brutal materialism. Gravitation ''is the sole cause'', the acting God, and matter is its prophet, said the men of science only a few years ago.}} | ||
They have changed their views several times since then. But do the men of Science understand the innermost thought of Newton, one of the most spiritual-minded and religious men of his day, any better now than they did then ? It is certainly to be doubted. Newton is credited with having given the death-blow to the Elemental Vortices of Descartes (the idea of Anaxagoras, resurrected, by-the-bye), though the last modern “ vortical atoms ” of Sir W. Thomson do not, in truth, differ much from the former. Nevertheless, when his disciple Forbes wrote in the ''Preface ''to the chief work of his Master a sentence declaring that “ attraction was the ''cause ''of the System,” Newton was the first to solemnly protest. That which in the mind of the great mathematician assumed the shadowy, but firmly rooted image of God, as the ''noumenon ''of all, * was called more philosophically by the ancient (and modern) philosophers and Occultists — “ Gods,” or the ''creative ''fashioning Powers. The modes of expression may have been different, and the ideas more or less philosophically enunciated by all sacred and profane Antiquity ; but the fundamental thought was the same. † For Pythagoras the Forces were Spiritual Entities, Gods inde- | They have changed their views several times since then. But do the men of Science understand the innermost thought of Newton, one of the most spiritual-minded and religious men of his day, any better now than they did then ? It is certainly to be doubted. Newton is credited with having given the death-blow to the Elemental Vortices of Descartes (the idea of Anaxagoras, resurrected, by-the-bye), though the last modern “ vortical atoms ” of Sir W. Thomson do not, in truth, differ much from the former. Nevertheless, when his disciple Forbes wrote in the ''Preface ''to the chief work of his Master a sentence declaring that “ attraction was the ''cause ''of the System,” Newton was the first to solemnly protest. That which in the mind of the great mathematician assumed the shadowy, but firmly rooted image of God, as the ''noumenon ''of all, * was called more philosophically by the ancient (and modern) philosophers and Occultists — “ Gods,” or the ''creative ''fashioning Powers. The modes of expression may have been different, and the ideas more or less philosophically enunciated by all sacred and profane Antiquity ; but the fundamental thought was the same. † For Pythagoras the Forces were Spiritual Entities, Gods inde- | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
<nowiki>*</nowiki> “ ''Attraction'',” Le Couturier, a materialist, writes, “ has now become for the public that which it was for Newton himself — a simple word, an ''idea ”'' (''Panorama des Mondes''), since its cause is unknown. Herschell virtually says the same, when remarking, that whenever studying the motion of the heavenly bodies, and the phenomena of attraction, he feels penetrated at every moment with the idea of “ the ''existence of causes ''that act for us under a veil, disguising ''their direct ''action.” (''Musée des Sciences'', August, 1856.) | <nowiki>*</nowiki> “ ''Attraction'',” Le Couturier, a materialist, writes, “ has now become for the public that which it was for Newton himself — a simple word, an ''idea ”'' (''Panorama des Mondes''), since its cause is unknown. Herschell virtually says the same, when remarking, that whenever studying the motion of the heavenly bodies, and the phenomena of attraction, he feels penetrated at every moment with the idea of “ the ''existence of causes ''that act for us under a veil, disguising ''their direct ''action.” (''Musée des Sciences'', August, 1856.) | ||
† If we are taken to task for believing in operating “ Gods ” and “ Spirits ” while rejecting a ''personal God'', we answer to the Theists and Monotheists ; “ Admit that your Jehovah is ''one of the Elohim'', and we are ready to recognise him. Make of him, as you do, the Infinite, the one and the ''Eternal ''God, and we will never accept him in this character.” Of ''tribal ''Gods there were many ; the One Universal Deity is a principle, an abstract Root-Idea which has nought to do with the unclean work of finite Form. We do not worship the Gods, we only honour Them, as beings superior to ourselves. In this we obey the Mosaic injunction, while Christians ''disobey ''their Bible — Missionaries foremost of all. “ ''Thou shalt not revile the gods'',” says one of them — (Jehovah) — in ''Exodus xxii. ''28) ; but at the same time in verse 20 it is commanded, “ He that sacrificeth to ''any ''God, save unto the Lord, he shall be utterly destroyed.” Now in the | † If we are taken to task for believing in operating “ Gods ” and “ Spirits ” while rejecting a ''personal God'', we answer to the Theists and Monotheists ; “ Admit that your Jehovah is ''one of the Elohim'', and we are ready to recognise him. Make of him, as you do, the Infinite, the {{Style S-Small capitals|one}} and the ''Eternal ''God, and we will never accept him in this character.” Of ''tribal ''Gods there were many ; the One Universal Deity is a principle, an abstract Root-Idea which has nought to do with the unclean work of finite Form. We do not worship the Gods, we only honour Them, as beings superior to ourselves. In this we obey the Mosaic injunction, while Christians ''disobey ''their Bible — Missionaries foremost of all. “ ''Thou shalt not revile the gods'',” says one of them — (Jehovah) — in ''Exodus xxii. ''28) ; but at the same time in verse 20 it is commanded, “ He that sacrificeth to ''any ''God, save unto the Lord, he shall be utterly destroyed.” Now in the | ||
{{Footnotes end}} | {{Footnotes end}} | ||