The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 3 of 4: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy — John Shaqi
The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 3 of 4: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and PhilosophyBlavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Religion
The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 3 of 4: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy
Blavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Theosophy
This established, how comes it that one of the best Greek scholars in
England, Prof. Jowett, the modern translator of Plato’s works, seeks to
demonstrate that none of the Dialogues—including even the _Timæus_—have
any element of Oriental Mysticism about them? Those who can discern the
true spirit of Plato’s Philosophy will hardly be convinced by the
arguments which the Master of Balliol College lays before his readers.
“Obscure and repulsive” to him, the _Timæus_ may certainly be; but it is
as certain that this obscurity does not arise, as the Professor tells his
public, “in the infancy of physical science,” but rather in its days of
secresy; not “out of the confusion of theological, mathematical, and
physiological notions,” or “out of the desire to conceive the whole of
Nature without any adequate knowledge of the parts.”(4) For Mathematics
and Geometry were the backbone of Occult cosmogony, hence of “Theology,”
and the physiological notions of the ancient Sages are being daily
verified by Science in our age; at least, to those who know how to read
and understand ancient Esoteric works. The “knowledge of the parts” avails
us little, if this knowledge only leads us the more to ignorance of the
Whole, or the “nature and reason of the Universal,” as Plato called Deity,
and causes us to blunder most egregiously because of our boasted inductive
methods. Plato may have been “incapable of induction, or generalization in
the modern sense”;(5) he may have been ignorant also, of the circulation
of the blood, which, we are told, “was absolutely unknown to him,”(6) but
then, there is naught to disprove that he knew what blood _is_—and this is
more than any modern Physiologist or Biologist can claim nowadays.
Though a wider and far more generous margin for knowledge is allowed the
“physical philosopher” by Prof. Jowett than by nearly any other modern
commentator and critic, nevertheless, his criticism so considerably
outweighs his laudation, that it may be as well to quote his own words, to
show clearly his bias. Thus he says:
To bring sense under the control of reason; to find some way
through the labyrinth or chaos of appearances, either the highway
of mathematics, or more devious paths suggested by the analogy of
man with the world and of the world with man; to see that all
things have a cause and are tending towards an end—this is the
spirit of the ancient physical philosopher.(7) But we neither
appreciate the conditions of knowledge to which he was subjected,
nor have the ideas which fastened upon his imagination the same
hold upon us. For he is hovering between matter and mind; he is
under the dominion of abstractions; his impressions are taken
almost at random from the outside of nature; he sees the light,
but not the objects which are revealed by the light; and he brings
into juxtaposition things which to us appear wide as the poles
asunder, because he finds nothing between them.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account