But one has to understand the phraseology of Occultism before criticizing what it asserts. For example, the Doctrine refuses—as Science does, in one sense—to use the words “above” and “below,” “higher” and “lower,” in reference to invisible spheres, since here they are without meaning. Even the terms “East” and “West” are merely conventional, necessary only to aid our human perceptions. For though the Earth has its two fixed points in the poles, North and South, yet both East and West are variable relatively to our own position on the Earth's surface, and in consequence of its rotation from West to East. Hence, when “other worlds” are mentioned—whether better or worse, more spiritual or still more material, though both invisible—the Occultist does not locate these spheres either outside or inside our Earth, as the theologians and the poets do; for their location is nowhere in the space known to, or conceived by, the profane. They are, as it were, blended with our world—interpenetrating [pg 663] it and interpenetrated by it. There are millions and millions of worlds and firmaments visible to us; there are still greater numbers beyond those visible to the telescope, and many of the latter kind do not belong to our objective sphere of existence. Although as invisible as if they were millions of miles beyond our Solar System, they are yet with us, near us, within our own world, as objective and material to their respective inhabitants as ours is to us. But, again, the relation of these worlds to ours is not that of a series of egg-shaped boxes enclosed one within the other, like the toys called Chinese nests; each is entirely under its own special laws and conditions, having no direct relation to our sphere. The inhabitants of these, as already said, may be, for all we know, or feel, passing through and around us as if through empty space, their very habitations and countries being interblended with ours, though not disturbing our vision, because we have not yet the faculties necessary for discerning them. Yet by their spiritual sight the Adepts, and even some seers and sensitives, are always able to discern, whether in a greater or smaller degree, the presence and close proximity to us of Beings pertaining to other spheres of life. Those of the spiritually higher worlds communicate only with those terrestrial mortals who ascend to them, through individual efforts, on to the higher plane they are occupying.
The sons of Bhûmi [Earth] regard the Sons of Deva-lokas [Angel-spheres] as their Gods; and the Sons of lower kingdoms look up to the men of Bhûmi as to their Devas [Gods]; men remaining unaware of it in their blindness.... They [men] tremble before them while using them [for magical purposes].... The First Race of Men were the “Mind-born Sons” of the former. They [the Pitris and Devas] are our progenitors.[1042]
“Educated people,” so-called, deride the idea of Sylphs, Salamanders, Undines, and Gnomes; the men of Science regard any mention of such superstitions as an insult; and with a contempt of logic and common good sense, that is often the prerogative of “accepted authority,” they allow those, whom it is their duty to instruct, to labour under the absurd impression that in the whole Kosmos, or at any rate in our own atmosphere, there are no other conscious, intelligent beings, save ourselves.[1043] Any other humanity (composed of distinct human beings) save a mankind with two legs, two arms, and a head with [pg 664] man's features on it, would not be called human; though the etymology of the word would seem to have little to do with the general appearance of a creature. Thus, while Science sternly rejects even the possibility of there being such (to us, generally) invisible creatures, Society, while believing in it all secretly, is made to deride the idea openly. It hails with mirth such works as the Comte de Gabalis, and fails to understand that open satire is the securest mask.
Nevertheless, such invisible worlds do exist. Inhabited as thickly as is our own, they are scattered throughout apparent Space in immense numbers; some far more material than our own world, others gradually etherealizing until they become formless and are as “breaths.” The fact that our physical eye does not see them, is no reason for disbelieving in them. Physicists cannot see their Ether, Atoms, “modes of motion,” or Forces. Yet they accept and teach them.
If we find, even in the natural world with which we are acquainted, Matter affording a partial analogy to the difficult conception of such invisible worlds, there seems little difficulty in recognizing the possibility of such a presence. The tail of a Comet, which, though attracting our attention by virtue of its luminosity, yet does not disturb or impede our vision of objects, which we perceive through and beyond it, affords the first stepping-stone toward a proof of the same. The tail of a Comet passes rapidly across our horizon, and we should neither feel it, nor be cognizant of its passage, but for the brilliant coruscation, often perceived only by a few interested in the phenomenon, while everyone else remains ignorant of its presence and of its passage through, or across, a portion of our globe. This tail may, or may not, be an integral portion of the being of the Comet, but its tenuity subserves our purpose as an illustration. Indeed, it is no question of superstition, but simply a result of transcendental Science, and of logic still more, to admit the existence of worlds formed of even far more attenuated Matter than the tail of a Comet. By denying such a possibility, Science has for the last century played into the hands of neither Philosophy nor true Religion, but simply into those of Theology. To be able to dispute the better the plurality of even material worlds, a belief thought by many churchmen incompatible with the teachings and doctrines of the Bible,[1044] Maxwell had to calumniate the [pg 665] memory of Newton, and to try and convince his public that the principles contained in the Newtonian philosophy are those “which lie at the foundation of all atheistical systems.”[1045]
“Dr. Whewell disputed the plurality of worlds by appeal to scientific evidence,” writes Professor Winchell.[1046] And if even the habitability of physical worlds, of Planets, and distant Stars which shine in myriads over our heads is so disputed, how little chance is there for the acceptance of invisible worlds within the apparently transparent space of our own!
But, if we can conceive of a world composed of Matter still more attenuated to our senses than the tail of a Comet, hence of inhabitants in it who are as ethereal, in proportion to their Globe, as we are in comparison with our rocky, hard-crusted Earth, no wonder if we do not perceive them, nor sense their presence or even existence. Only, in what is the idea contrary to Science? Cannot men and animals, plants and rocks, be supposed to be endowed with quite a different set of senses from those we possess? Cannot their organisms be born, develop, and exist, under other laws of being than those that rule our little world? Is it absolutely necessary that every corporeal being should be clothed in “coats of skin” like those that Adam and Eve were provided with in the legend of Genesis? Corporeality, we are told, however, by more than one man of Science, “may exist under very divergent conditions.” Professor A. Winchell—arguing upon the plurality of worlds—makes the following remarks:
It is not at all improbable that substances of a refractory nature might be so mixed with other substances, known or unknown to us, as to be capable of enduring vastly greater vicissitudes of heat and cold than is possible with terrestrial organisms. The tissues of terrestrial animals are simply suited to terrestrial conditions. Yet even here we find different types and species of animals adapted to the trials of extremely dissimilar situations.... That an animal should be a quadruped or a biped is something not depending on the necessities of organization, or instinct, or intelligence. That an animal should possess just five senses is not a necessity of percipient existence. There may be animals on the earth with neither smell nor taste. There may be beings on other worlds, and even on this, who possess more numerous senses than we. The possibility of this is apparent when we consider the high probability that other properties and other modes of existence lie among the resources of the Cosmos, and even of terrestrial matter. There are animals which subsist where rational man would perish—in the soil, in [pg 666]the river, and the sea ... [and why not human beings of different organizations, in such case?].... Nor is incorporated rational existence conditioned on warm blood, nor on any temperature which does not change the forms of matter of which the organism may be composed. There may be intelligences corporealized after some concept not involving the processes of injection, assimilation, and reproduction. Such bodies would not require daily food and warmth. They might be lost in the abysses of the ocean, or laid up on a stormy cliff through the tempests of an Arctic winter, or plunged in a volcano for a hundred years, and yet retain consciousness and thought. It is conceivable. Why might not psychic natures be enshrined in indestructible flint and platinum? These substances are no further from the nature of intelligence than carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and lime. But, not to carry the thought to such an extreme [?], might not high intelligence be embodied in frames as indifferent to external conditions as the sage of the western plains, or the lichens of Labrador, the rotifers which remain dried for years, or the bacteria which pass living through boiling water.... These suggestions are made simply to remind the reader how little can be argued respecting the necessary conditions of intelligent, organized existence, from the standard of corporeal existence found upon the earth. Intelligence is, from its nature, as universal and as uniform as the laws of the universe. Bodies are merely the local fitting of intelligence to particular modifications of universal matter or force.[1047]
Do not we know through the discoveries of that same all-denying Science that we are surrounded by myriads of invisible lives? If these microbes, bacteria and the tutti quanti of the infinitesimally small, are invisible to us by virtue of their minuteness, cannot there be, at the other pole, beings as invisible owing to the quality of their texture or matter—to its tenuity, in fact? Conversely, as to the effects of cometary matter, have we not another example of a half visible form of Life and Matter? The ray of sunlight entering our apartment reveals in its passage myriads of tiny beings living their little life and ceasing to be, independent and heedless of whether they are or are not perceived by our grosser materiality. And so again, of the microbes and bacteria and such-like unseen beings in other elements. We passed them by, during those long centuries of dreary ignorance, after the lamp of knowledge in the heathen and highly philosophical systems had ceased to throw its bright light on the ages of intolerance and bigotry of early Christianity; and we would fain pass them by again now.
And yet these lives surrounded us then as they do now. They have worked on, obedient to their own laws, and it is only as they have been gradually revealed by Science that we have begun to take cognizance of them and of the effects produced by them.