The Universe's General Elements

17. Is it given to mankind to know the first principle of things?

17. Can humanity know the first principle of things?

"No. There are things that cannot be understood by man in this world."

"No. There are things people cannot understand in this world."

18. Will man ever be able to penetrate the mystery of things now hidden from him?

18. Will people ever be able to understand the mystery of things now hidden from them?

"The veil will be raised for him in proportion as he accomplishes his purification; but, in order to understand certain things, he would need faculties which he does not yet possess."

"The veil will be lifted for him as he becomes purified. But to understand certain things, he would need abilities he does not yet have."

19. Cannot man, through scientific investigation, penetrate some of the secrets of nature?

19. Can people discover some of nature's secrets through scientific research?

"The faculty of scientific research has been given to him as a means by which he may advance in every direction; but he cannot overstep the limits of his present possibilities."

"He has been given the ability to do scientific research so that he may advance in every direction. But he cannot go beyond the limits of what is possible for him now."

The farther man advances in the study of the mysteries around him, the greater should be his admiration of the power and wisdom of the Creator. But, partly through pride, partly through weakness, his intellect itself often renders him the sport of illusion. He heaps systems upon systems; and every day shows him how many errors he has mistaken for truths, how many truths he has repelled as errors. All this should be a lesson for his pride.

The more people study the mysteries around them, the more they should admire the power and wisdom of the Creator. But partly through pride and partly through weakness, their own intellect often leaves them at the mercy of illusions. They pile theory upon theory. Every day shows them how many errors they have mistaken for truths, and how many truths they have rejected as errors. All this should teach them a lesson about their pride.

20. Is man permitted to receive communications of a higher order in regard to matters which, not being within the scope of his senses, are beyond the pale of scientific investigation?

20. Are humans permitted to receive higher communications about matters beyond their senses and therefore beyond scientific investigation?

"Yes. When God judges such revelations to be useful, He reveals to man what science is incompetent to teach him."

"Yes. When God sees that such revelations are useful, he reveals what science cannot teach people."

It is through communications of this higher order that man is enabled, within certain limits, to obtain a knowledge of his past and of his future destiny.

Through these higher forms of communication, people can learn about their past and future destiny, within certain limits.

21. Has matter existed from all eternity, like God, or has it been created at some definite period of time?

21. Has matter always existed, like God, or was it created at a specific time?

"God only knows. There is, nevertheless, one point which your reason should suffice to show you, viz., that God, the prototype of love and beneficence, can never have been inactive. However far off in the past you may imagine the beginning of His action, can you suppose Him to have been for a single moment inactive?"

"Only God knows. But your reason should be enough to show you one thing. God, the perfect example of love and kindness, could never have been inactive. However far back you imagine his actions began, could he have been inactive for even a moment?"

22. Matter is generally defined as being "that which has extension," "that which can make an impression upon our senses," "that which possesses impenetrability." Are these definitions correct?

22. Matter is generally defined as "that which occupies space," "that which can affect our senses," or "that which cannot be penetrated." Are these definitions correct?

"From your point of view they are correct, because you can only define in accordance with what you know. But matter exists in states which are unknown to you. It may be, for instance, so ethereal and subtle as to make no impression upon your senses; and yet it is still matter, although it would not be such for you."

"From your point of view, they are correct because you can only define things according to what you know. But matter exists in forms you do not know. For example, it may be so subtle and delicate that your senses cannot detect it. Yet it is still matter, although you would not regard it as such."

—What definition can you give of matter?

How would you define matter?

"Matter is the element which enchains spirit, the instrument which serves it, and upon which, at the same time, it exerts its action."

"Matter is the element that binds spirit. It is the instrument spirit uses and acts upon at the same time."

From this point of view it may be said that matter is the agent, the intermediary, through which, and upon which, spirit acts.

From this point of view, matter may be seen as the means through which spirit acts and the substance it acts upon.

23. What is spirit?

23. What is spirit?

"The intelligent principle of the universe."

"The intelligent principle of the universe."

—What is the essential nature of spirit?

What is the basic nature of spirit?

"It is not possible to explain the nature of spirit in your language. For you it is not a thing, because it is not palpable; but for us it is a thing."

"We cannot explain the nature of spirit in your language. To you, it is not a thing, because you cannot touch it. But to us, it is a thing."

24. Is spirit synonymous with intelligence?

24. Does spirit mean the same thing as intelligence?

"Intelligence is an essential attribute of spirit, but both merge in a unitary principle, so that, for you, they may be said to be the same thing."

"Intelligence is an essential quality of spirit, but both merge into a single principle. So, for you, they may be said to be the same thing."

25. Is spirit independent of matter, or is it only one of the properties of matter, as colours are a property of light, and as sound is a property of the air?

25. Is spirit independent of matter, or is it only a property of matter, like color in light or sound in air?

"Spirit and matter are distinct from one another; but the union of spirit and matter is necessary to give intelligent activity to matter."

"Spirit and matter are distinct from each other. But spirit and matter must unite to give matter intelligent activity."

—Is this union equally necessary to the manifestation of spirit? (We refer, in this question, to the principle of intelligence, abstractly considered, without reference to the individualities designated by that term.)

Is this union equally necessary for spirit to manifest? (In this question, we mean the principle of intelligence in the abstract, not the individual beings called spirits.)

"It is necessary for you, because you are not organised for perceiving spirit apart from matter. Your senses are not formed for that order of perception."

"It is necessary for you because you are not made to perceive spirit apart from matter. Your senses are not made for that kind of perception."

26. Can spirit be conceived of without matter, and matter without spirit?

26. Can we imagine spirit without matter, and matter without spirit?

"Undoubtedly, as objects of thought."

"Certainly, as things to think about."

27. There are, then, two general elements of the universe—matter and spirit?"

27. So, are there two general elements of the universe, matter and spirit?"

"Yes; and above them both is God, the Creator, Parent of all things. These three elements are the principle of all that exists—the universal trinity. But to the material element must be added the universal fluid which plays the part of intermediary between spirit and matter, the nature of the latter being too gross for spirit to be able to act directly upon it. Although, from another point of view, this fluid may be classed as forming part of the material element, it is, nevertheless, distinguished from that element by certain special properties of its own. If it could be classed simply and absolutely as matter, there would be no reason why spirit also should not be classed as matter. It is intermediary between spirit and matter. It is fluid, just as matter is matter, and is susceptible of being made, through its innumerable combinations with matter, under the directing action of spirit, to produce the infinite variety of things of which you know as yet but a very small portion. This universal, primitive, or elementary fluid, being the agent employed by spirit in acting upon matter, is the principle without which matter would remain for ever in a state of division, and would never acquire the properties given to it by the state of ponderability."

"Yes, and above them both is God, the Creator and Parent of all things. These three elements are the basis of all that exists, the universal trinity. But the universal fluid must be added to the material element. It acts as an intermediary between spirit and matter, because matter is too coarse for spirit to act on directly. From another point of view, this fluid may be classified as part of the material element. Nevertheless, it has certain special properties that distinguish it from that element. If it could be classified simply and entirely as matter, there would be no reason not to classify spirit as matter too. It is an intermediary between spirit and matter. It is fluid, just as matter is matter. Under the direction of spirit, it can combine with matter in countless ways to produce an infinite variety of things. You know only a very small portion of these things so far. This universal, primitive, or elementary fluid is the means by which spirit acts on matter. Without it, matter would remain divided forever and would never acquire the properties that come from having weight."

—Is this fluid what we designate by the name of electricity?

Is this fluid what we call electricity?

"We have said that it is susceptible of innumerable combinations. What you call the electric fluid, the magnetic fluid, &c, are modifications of the universal fluid, which, properly speaking, is only matter of a more perfect and more subtle kind, and that may be considered as having an independent existence of its own."

"We have said that it can take countless forms. What you call the electric fluid, the magnetic fluid, and so on are forms of the universal fluid. Properly speaking, the universal fluid is simply a more perfect and subtle kind of matter. It may be considered to have an independent existence of its own."

28. Since spirit itself is something, would it not be more correct and clearer to designate these two general elements by the terms inert matter and intelligent matter?

28. Since spirit itself is something, would it be more accurate and clearer to call these two general elements inert matter and intelligent matter?

"Questions of words are of little importance for us. It is for you to formulate your definitions in such a manner as to make yourselves intelligible to one another. Your disputes almost always arise from the want of a common agreement in the use of the words you employ, owing to the incompleteness of your language in regard to all that does not strike your senses."

"Questions about words matter little to us. It is up to you to define your terms so that you can understand one another. Your disputes almost always arise because you do not agree on how to use words. This is because your language is inadequate for describing anything beyond what your senses perceive."

One fact, patent to all observers, dominates all our hypotheses. We see matter which is not intelligent; we see the action of an intelligent principle independent of matter. The origin and connection of these two things are unknown to us. Whether they have, or have not, a common source, and points of contact pre-ordained in the nature of things, whether intelligence has an independent existence of its own, or is only a property or an effect, or even whether it is (as some assume it to be) an emanation of the Divinity, are points about which we know nothing. Matter and intelligence appear to us to be distinct; and we therefore speak of them as being two constituent elements of the universe. We see, above these, a higher intelligence which governs all things, and is distinguished from them all by essential attributes peculiar to itself; it is this Supreme Intelligence that we call God.

One fact, clear to all observers, outweighs all our theories. We see matter that is not intelligent. We also see an intelligent principle acting independently of matter. We do not know the origin of matter and intelligence or how they are connected. We do not know whether they have a common source or points of contact built into the nature of things. Nor do we know whether intelligence exists independently, or is only a property or an effect. Some even assume it comes from God, but we know nothing about this either. Matter and intelligence appear distinct to us, so we speak of them as two elements that make up the universe. Above them, we see a higher intelligence that governs all things. This intelligence is distinct from all things because of its own essential qualities. We call this Supreme Intelligence God.

29. Is density an essential attribute of matter?

29. Is density an essential property of matter?

"Yes, of matter as understood by you, but not of matter considered as the universal fluid. The ethereal and subtle matter which forms this fluid is imponderable for you, and yet it is none the less the principle of your ponderable matter."

"Yes, it is without matter as you understand it, but not without matter understood as the universal fluid. The ethereal, subtle matter that forms this fluid cannot be weighed by you. Yet it is still the source of the matter you can weigh."

Density is a relative property. Beyond the sphere of attraction of the various globes of the universe, there is no such thing as "weight," just as there is neither "up" nor "down."

Density is relative. Beyond the gravitational pull of the various worlds in the universe, there is no "weight," just as there is no "up" or "down."

30. Is matter formed of one element or of several elements?

30. Is matter made of one element or several elements?

"Of one primitive element. The bodies which you regard as simple are not really elementary; they are transformations of the primitive matter."

"From one original element. The substances you think of as simple are not truly basic. They are forms of the original matter."

31. Whence come the different properties of matter?

31. Where do the different properties of matter come from?

"From the modifications undergone by the elementary molecules, as the result of their union and of the action of certain conditions."

"From changes in the elementary molecules caused by their joining together and by the action of certain conditions."

32. According to this view of the subject, savours, odours, colours, sounds, the poisonous or salutary qualities of bodies, are only the result of modifications of one and the same primitive substance?

32. According to this view, do tastes, smells, colors, sounds, and the poisonous or beneficial qualities of substances all result from changes in one original substance?

"Yes, undoubtedly; and that only exist in virtue of the disposition of the organs destined to perceive them."

"Yes, certainly, and they exist only because of the way the organs that perceive them are arranged."

This principle is proved by the fact that the qualities of bodies are not perceived by all persons in the same manner. The same thing appears agreeable to the taste of one person, and disagreeable to that of another. What appears blue to one person appears red to another. That which is a poison for some, is wholesome for others.

This principle is proved by the fact that not everyone perceives the qualities of physical things in the same way. The same thing tastes good to one person and unpleasant to another. What looks blue to one person looks red to another. What is poisonous to some is healthy for others.

33. Is the same elementary matter susceptible of undergoing all possible modifications and of acquiring all possible qualities?

33. Can the same elementary matter undergo all possible changes and acquire all possible qualities?

"Yes; and it is this fact which is implied in the saying that everything is in everything"⁶

"Yes, and this is what the saying everything is in everything"⁶ means.

Oxygen, hydrogen, azote, carbon, and all the other bodies which we regard as simple, are only modifications of one primitive substance. But the impossibility, in which we have hitherto found ourselves, of arriving at this primitive matter otherwise than as an intellectual deduction, causes these bodies to appear to us to be really elementary; and we may, therefore, without impropriety, continue for the present to regard them as such.

Oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and all other substances we regard as simple are only forms of one original substance. But so far, we have been able to arrive at this original substance only through intellectual deduction. This makes these substances appear truly elementary to us. We may therefore continue to regard them as elementary for now without being wrong to do so.

—Does not this theory appear to bear out the opinion of those who admit only two essential properties in matter, viz., force and movement, and who regard all the other properties of matter as being merely secondary effects of these, varying according to the intensity of the force and the direction of the movement?

Doesn't this theory seem to support the view that matter has only two essential properties, force and movement? Those who hold this view regard all other properties of matter as secondary effects of force and movement. They believe these effects vary according to the strength of the force and the direction of the movement.

"That opinion is correct. But you must also add, according to the mode of molecular arrangement; as you see exemplified, for instance, in an opaque body, that may become transparent, and vice versa."

"That opinion is correct. But you must also add, according to the arrangement of molecules. For example, an opaque object may become transparent, and vice versa."

34. Have the molecules of matter a determinate form?

34. Do molecules of matter have a definite shape?

"Those molecules undoubtedly have a form, but one which is not appreciable by your organs."

"Those molecules undoubtedly have a shape, but your senses cannot detect it."

—Is that form constant or variable?

Does that form stay the same or change?

"Constant for the primitive elementary molecules, but variable for the secondary molecules, which are themselves only agglomerations of the primary ones; for what you term a molecule is still very far from being the elementary molecule.

"Constant for the original elementary molecules, but variable for secondary molecules. These are only clusters of the primary molecules. For what you call a molecule is still far from being an elementary molecule.

35. Is universal space infinite or limited?

35. Is space infinite, or does it have limits?

"Infinite. Suppose the existence of boundaries, what would there be beyond them? This consideration confounds human reason; and nevertheless your reason itself tells you that it cannot be otherwise. It is thus with the idea of infinity, under whatever aspect you consider it. The idea of infinity cannot be comprehended in your narrow sphere."

"Infinite. Suppose there are boundaries. What would be beyond them? This question confounds human reason. Yet your reason itself tells you that there cannot be boundaries. The same is true of infinity, however you think about it. You cannot understand infinity within your narrow sphere."

If we imagine a limit to space, no matter how far off our thought may place this limit, our reason tells us that there must still be something beyond it; and so on, step by step, until we arrive at the idea of infinity; for the "something beyond," the existence of which is recognised by our thought as a necessity, were it only an absolute void, would still be space.

If we imagine a boundary to space, reason tells us there must be something beyond it, however far away we place it. Step by step, this brings us to the idea of infinity. Our minds recognize that there must be “something beyond.” Even if it were an absolute void, it would still be space.

36. Does an absolute void exist in any part of space?

36. Is there a completely empty void anywhere in space?

"No; there is no void. What appears like a void to you is occupied by matter in a state in which it escapes the action of your senses and of your instruments."

"No, there is no void. What looks like a void to you is filled with matter in a state that your senses and instruments cannot detect."