{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/secret-doctrine/vol-2-anthropogenesis/92-ii-the-ancestors-mankind-is-offered-by-science-656.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "vol-2-anthropogenesis",
    "name": "Volume II — Anthropogenesis"
  },
  "parents": [
    {
      "slug": "secret-doctrine",
      "name": "The Secret Doctrine",
      "url": "/sources/secret-doctrine/"
    }
  ],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 42,
    "slug": "92-ii-the-ancestors-mankind-is-offered-by-science-656",
    "title": "II. THE ANCESTORS MANKIND IS OFFERED BY SCIENCE ... 656",
    "of": 49,
    "words": 9567,
    "text": "## II. THE ANCESTORS MANKIND IS OFFERED BY SCIENCE ... 656\n\n\nThe Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, vol 2, pt 3, ch 2\n\n###### The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 2\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 656 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n#### § II.\nTHE ANCESTORS MANKIND IS OFFERED BY SCIENCE.\n\n---------------------\n\n\"The question of questions for mankind -- the problem which\nunderlies all others, and is more deeply interesting than any\nother -- is the ascertainment of the place which man occupies\nin Nature, and of his relations to the Universe of things.\"\n-- **H**UXLEY.\n\n---------------------\n\n**T**HE world stands divided this day, and hesitates between\n*divine* progenitors* -- *be they Adam and Eve or the\nlunar Pitris* -- *and* Bathybius Haeckelii, *the gelatinous\nhermit of the briny deep. Having explained the occult theory,\nit may now be compared with that of the modem Materialism. The\nreader is invited to choose between the two after having judged\nthem on their respective merits.\n\nWe may derive some consolation for the rejection of our divine\nancestors, in finding that the Haeckelian speculations receive\nno better treatment at the hands of strictly *exact *Science\nthan do our own. Haeckel's* phylogenesis *is no less laughed\nat by the foes of his fantastic evolution, by other and greater\nScientists, than our primeval races will be. As du Bois-Reymond\nputs it, we may believe him easily when he says that \"ancestral\ntrees of our race sketched in the 'Schopfungs-geschichte' are\nof about as much value as are the pedigrees of the Homeric heroes\nin the eyes of the historical critic.\"\n\nThis settled, everyone will see that one hypothesis is as good\nas another. And as we find that German naturalist (Haeckel) himself\nconfessing that neither geology (in its history of the past) nor\nthe ancestral history of organisms will ever \"rise to the\nposition of a real exact Science,\"* a large margin is thus\nleft to Occult Science to make its annotations and lodge its protests.\nThe world is left to choose between the teachings of Paracelsus,\nthe \"Father of Modern Chemistry,\" and those of Haeckel,\nthe Father of the mythical *Sozura. *We demand no more.\n\nWithout presuming to take part in the quarrel of such very learned\nnaturalists as du Bois-Reymond and Haeckel *a propos *of\nour blood relationship to \"those ancestors (of ours) which\nhave led up from the unicellular classes, Vermes, Acrania, Pisces,\nAmphibia, Reptilia to the Aves\"* -- *one may put in\na few words, a question or two, for the information of our readers.\nAvailing ourselves of the opportunity, and bearing\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* \"Pedigree of Man.\"* -- *\"*The Proofs of\nEvolution,*\"* p. *273.\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 657 AN UNVERIFIED CHARGE AGAINST THE ANCIENTS.\n\nin mind Darwin's theories of natural selection, etc., we would\nask Science -- with regard to the origin of the human and animal\nspecies -- which theory of evolution of the two herewith described\nis the more scientific, or the more *unscientific, *if so\npreferred.\n\n(1). Is it that of an Evolution which starts from the beginning\nwith sexual propagation?\n\n(2)*. *Or that teaching which shows the gradual development\nof organs; their solidification, and the procreation of each species,\nat first by simple easy separation from one into two or even several\nindividuals. Then follows a fresh development* -- *the first\nstep to a species of separate distinct sexes* -- *the hermaphrodite\ncondition; then again, a kind of Parthenogenesis, \"virginal\nreproduction,\" when the egg-cells are formed within the body,\nissuing from it in atomic emanations and becoming matured outside\nof it; until, finally, after a definite separation into sexes,\nthe human beings begin procreating through sexual connection?\n\nOf these two, the former \"theory,\" -- rather, a \"*revealed\n*fact\" -- is enunciated by all the *exoteric *Bibles\n(except the Puranas), preeminently by the Jewish Cosmogony. The\nlast one, is that which is taught by the Occult philosophy, as\nexplained all along.\n\nAn answer is found to our question in a volume just published\nby Mr. S. Laing -- the best lay exponent of Modern Science.* In\nchapter viii. of his latest work, \"A Modern Zoroastrian,\"\nthe author begins by twitting \"all ancient religions and\nphilosophies\" for \"assuming a male and female principle\nfor their gods.\" At first sight, he says \"the distinction\nof sex appears as fundamental as that of plant and animal.\"\n. . . . \"The Spirit of god brooding over Chaos and producing\nthe world,\" he goes on to complain, \"is only a later\nedition, revised according to monotheistic ideas, of the far older\nChaldean legend which describes the creation of Kosmos out of\nChaos by the co-operations of great gods, male and female . .\n\" Thus, in the orthodox Christian creed we are taught to\nrepeat \"begotten, not made,\" a phrase which is absolute\nnonsense, an instance of using words like counterfeit notes, which\nhave no solid value of an idea behind them. For \"begotten\"\nis a very definite term which \"implies the conjunction of\ntwo opposite sexes to produce a new individual.\"\n\nHowever we may agree with the learned author as to the inadvisability\nof using wrong words, and the terrible anthropomorphic and *phallic*\nelement in the old Scriptures* -- *especially in the orthodox\nChristian Bible -- nevertheless, there may be two extenuating\ncircumstances in the case. Firstly, all these \"ancient philosophies\"\nand \"modern\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Author of \"Modern Science and Modern Thought.\"\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 658 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nreligions\" are* -- *as sufficiently shown in these two\nvolumes* -- *an exoteric veil thrown over the face of esoteric\ntruth; and -- as the direct result of this* -- *they are\nallegorical, *i.e.*, mythological in form; but still they\nare immensely more philosophical in essence than any of the new\n*scientific *theories, so-called. Secondly, from the Orphic\ntheogony down to Ezra's last remodelling of the Pentateuch, every\nold Scripture having in its origin borrowed its facts from the\nEast, it has been subjected to constant alterations by friend\nand foe, until of the original version there remained but the\nname, a dead shell from which the Spirit had been gradually eliminated.\n\nThis alone ought to show that no religious work now extant can\nbe understood without the help of the Archaic wisdom, the primitive\nfoundation on which they were all built.\n\nBut to return to the direct answer expected from Science to *our\n*direct question. It is given by the same author, when, following\nhis train of thought on the unscientific euhemerization of the\npowers of Nature in ancient creeds, he pronounces a condemnatory\nverdict upon them in the following terms: --\n\n\"Science, however, makes sad havoc with this impression *of\nsexual generation being the original and only mode of reproduction,*\n*and the microscope and dissecting knife of the naturalist\nintroduce us to new and altogether unsuspected (?) worlds of life.\n. . .\"\n\nSo little \"*unsuspected,*\"* *indeed, that\nthe *original a*-sexual \"modes of reproduction\"\nmust have been known* -- *to the ancient Hindus, at any rate\n-- Mr. Laing's assertion to the contrary, notwithstanding. In\nview of the statement in the Vishnu Purana, quoted by us elsewhere,\nthat Daksha \"established sexual intercourse as the means\nof multiplication,\" only after a series of other \"modes,\"\nwhich are all enumerated therein, (*Vol. II., p. *12*,\nWilson*'*s Transl.*)*, *it becomes difficult to deny\nthe fact. This assertion, moreover, is found, note well, in an\nEXOTERIC work. Then, Mr. S. Laing goes on to tell us that: --\n\n. . . . \"By far the larger proportion of living forms, in\nnumber . . . . have come into existence, *without the aid of\nsexual *propagation.\" He then instances Haeckel's monera\n. . . . \"*multiplying by self-division.*\"* *The\nnext stage the author shows in the nucleated cell, \"which\ndoes exactly the same thing.\" The following stage is that\nin \"which the organism does not divide into two equal parts,\nbut a *small portion of it swells out *. . . . *and finally\nparts company *and starts on separate existence, which grows\nto the size of the parent by its inherent faculty of manufacturing\nfresh protoplasm from surrounding inorganic materials.\"**\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Vide Part I. of this volume, page 183, Stanza **VIII**.\n\n** In this, as shown in Part I., Modern Science was again anticipated,\nfar beyond its own speculations in this direction, by *Archaic\n*Science.\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 659 VARIOUS MODES OF REPRODUCTION.\n\nThis is followed by a many-celled organism which is formed by\n\"*germ-buds reduced to spores, or single cells, which are\nemitted from the parent*\". . . .* *when \"we\nare at the threshold of that system of sexual propagation, which\nhas (now) become the rule in all the higher families of animals\"\n. . . . It is when an \"organism, having advantages in the\nstruggle for life, established itself permanently\" . . .\n. that special organs developed to meet the altered condition\n. . . . . when a distinction \"would be firmly established\nof a female organ or ovary containing the egg or primitive cell\nfrom which the new being was to be developed.\" . . . . \"This\nis confirmed by a study of embryology, *which shows that in\nthe *HUMAN and higher animal species *the distinction of\nsex is not developed *until a considerable progress has been\nmade in the growth of the embryo . . . . \" In the great majority\nof plants, and in some lower families of animals . . . the male\nand female organs are developed within the same being . . . .\n. a hermaphrodite. Moreover, in the \"virginal reproduction\n-- germ-cells apparently similar in all respects to egg-cells,\ndevelop themselves into new individuals *without any fructifying\nelement,*\"* *etc., etc. (pp. 103-107).\n\nOf all which we are as perfectly well aware as of this* -- *that\nthe above was never applied by the very learned English popularizer\nof Huxleyo-Haeckelian theories to the genus *homo. *He limits\nthis to specks of protoplasm, plants, bees, snails, and so on.\nBut if he would be true to the theory of descent, he must be as\ntrue to ontogenesis, in which the fundamental biogenetic law,\nwe are told, runs as follows: \"the development of the embryo\n(ontogeny) is a condensed and abbreviated repetition *of the\nevolution of the race *(phylogeny). This repetition is the\nmore complete, the more the true original order of evolution (palingenesis)\nhas been retained by continual heredity. On the other hand, this\nrepetition is the less complete, the more by varying adaptations\nthe later spurious development (caenogenesis) has obtained.\"\n(*Anthrop. 3rd edition, p. *11.)\n\nThis shows to us that every living creature and thing on earth,\nincluding man, evolved from *one common primal form. *Physical\nman must have passed through the same stages of the evolutionary\nprocess in the various modes of procreation as other animals have:\nhe must have *divided *himself; then, hermaphrodite, have\ngiven birth *parthenogenetically *(on the immaculate principle)\nto his young ones; the next stage would be the *oviparous --\n*at first \"without any fructifying element,\" then\n\"with the help of the fertilitary spore\"; and only after\nthe final and definite evolution of both sexes, would he become\na distinct \"male and female,\" when reproduction through\nsexual union would grow into universal law. So far, all this is\nscientifically proven. There remains but one thing to be ascertained:\nthe plain and comprehensively described\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 660 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nprocesses of such *ante*-sexual reproduction. This is done\nin the Occult books, a slight outline of which was attempted by\nthe writer in Part I. of this Volume.\n\nEither this, or* -- *man is a distinct being. Occult philosophy\nmay call him that, because of his distinctly *dual* nature.\nScience cannot do so, once that it rejects every interference\nsave *mechanical laws, and *admits of no principle outside\nmatter. The former* -- *the archaic Science --allows the\nhuman physical frame to have passed through every form, from the\nlowest to the very highest, its present one, or from the simple\nto the complex* -- *to use the accepted terms. But it claims\nthat in this cycle (the fourth), the frame having already existed\namong the types and models of nature from the preceding Rounds*\n-- *that it was quite ready for man from the beginning of *this\nRound.* *The Monad had but to step into the astral body of\nthe progenitors, in order that the work of physical consolidation\nshould begin around the shadowy prototype.**\n\nWhat would Science say to this? It would answer, of course, that\nas man appeared on earth as the latest of the mammalians, he had\nno need, no more than those mammals, to pass through the primitive\nstages of procreation as above described. His mode of procreation\nwas already established on Earth when he appeared. In this case,\nwe may reply: since to this day not the remotest sign of a link\nbetween man and the animal has yet been found, then (if the Occultist\ndoctrine is to be repudiated) he must have sprung *miraculously\n*in* *nature, like a fully armed Minerva from Jupiter's\nbrain. And in such case the Bible is right, along with other national\n\"revelations.\" Hence the scientific scorn, so freely\nlavished by the author of \"A Modern\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Theosophists will remember that, according to Occult teaching,\nCyclic pralayas so-called are but *obscurations, *during\nwhich periods Nature, *i.e.*, everything visible and *invisible\n*on a resting planet* -- *remains *in statu quo. *Nature\nrests and slumbers, no work of destruction going on on the globe\neven if no active work is done. All forms, as well as their astral\ntypes, remain as they were at the last moment of its activity.\nThe \"night\" of a planet has hardly any twilight preceding\nit. It is caught like a huge mammoth by an avalanche, and remains\nslumbering and frozen till the next dawn of its new day* --\n*a very short one indeed in comparison to the \"Day of\nBrahma.\"\n\n** This will be pooh-poohed, because it will not be understood\nby our modern men of science; but every Occultist and theosophist\nwill easily realize the process. There *can be no objective\n*form on Earth (nor in the Universe either), without its astral\nprototype being first formed in Space. From Phidias down to the\nhumblest workman in the ceramic art* -- *a sculptor has had\nto create first of all a model in his mind, then sketch it in\none and two dimensional lines, and then only can he reproduce\nit in a three dimensional or objective figure. And if human mind\nis a living demonstration of such successive stages in the process\nof evolution -- how can it be otherwise when **N**ATURE'S **M**IND\nand creative powers are concerned?\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 661 WHERE ARE THE \"MISSING LINKS\"?\n\nZoroastrian\" upon ancient philosophies and *exoteric *creeds,\nbecomes premature and uncalled for. Nor would the sudden discovery\nof a \"missing-link\" -- like fossil mend matters at all.\nFor neither one such solitary specimen nor the *scientific conclusions\n*thereupon, could insure its being the long-sought-for relic,\n*i.e.*, that of an undeveloped, still a once *speaking\n*MAN. Something more would be required as a final proof (*vide\ninfra, Note*)*. *Besides which, even *Genesis *takes\nup man, her Adam of dust, only where the Secret Doctrine leaves\nher \"Sons of God and Wisdom\" and picks up the physical\nman of the **T**HIRD Race. Eve is *not *\"begotten,\"\nbut is extracted out of Adam on the manner of \"Amoeba, A,\"\ncontracting in the middle and splitting into Amoeba B* -- *by\ndivision. (*See* p*. *103, in* *\"*The Modern\nZoroastrian.*\")* *Nor has human speech developed\nfrom the various animal sounds.\n\nHaeckel's theory that \"speech arose gradually from a few\nsimple, crude animal sounds . . . .\" as such \"speech\nstill remains amongst a few races of lower rank\" (*Darwinian\ntheory in *\"*Pedigree of Man,*\"* *p. 22)\nis altogether unsound, as argued by Professor Max Muller, among\nothers. He contends that no plausible explanation has yet been\ngiven as to how the \"roots\" of language came into existence.\nA *human* brain is necessary for *human *speech. And\nfigures relating to the size of the respective brains of man and\nape show how deep is the gulf which separates the two. Vogt says\nthat the brain of the largest ape, the gorilla, measures no more\nthan 30.51 cubic inches; while the average brains of the flat-headed\nAustralian natives -- the lowest now in the human races -- amount\nto 99.35 cubic inches! Figures are awkward witnesses and cannot\nlie. Therefore, as truly observed by Dr. F. Pfaff, whose premises\nare as sound and correct as his biblical conclusions are silly:*\n-- *\"The brain of the apes most like man, does not amount\nto quite a third of the brain of the lowest races *of men*:*\nit is not half the size of the brain of a new-born child.*\"*\n*(\"*The Age and Origin of Man.*\")* *From\nthe foregoing it is thus very easy to perceive that in order to\nprove the Huxley-Haeckelian theories of the descent of man, it\nis not *one, *but a great number of \"*missing links*\"\n-- a* *true ladder of progressive evolutionary steps* --\n*that would have to be first found and then presented by Science\nto thinking and reasoning humanity, before it would abandon belief\nin gods and the immortal Soul for the worship of Quadrumanic ancestors.\nMere myths are now greeted as \"axiomatic truths.\" Even\nAlfred Russel Wallace maintains with Haeckel that primitive man\nwas a speechless ape-creature. To this Joly answers:* -- *\"Man\nnever was, in my opinion, this *pithecanthropus alalus *whose\nportrait Haeckel has drawn *as if he had seen and known him,\n*whose* singular *and* completely hypothetical *genealogy\nhe has even given, from the mere mass of living protoplasm to\nthe man endowed with speech and a civilization analo-\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 662 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\ngous to that of the Australians and Papuans.\" (\"Man\nbefore Metals,\" p. 320*,* N. Joly.* Inter. Scient.\nSeries.*)\n\nHaeckel, among other things, often comes into direct conflict\nwith the Science of languages. In the course of his attack on\nEvolutionism (1873, \"Mr. Darwin's Philosophy of Language\"),\nProf. Max Muller stigmatized the Darwinian theory as \"vulnerable\nat the beginning and at the end.\" The fact is, that only\nthe partial truth of many of the *secondary *\"laws\"\nof Darwinism is beyond question -- M. de Quatrefages evidently\naccepting \"Natural Selection,\" the \"struggle for\nexistence\" and transformation within species, as proven not\nonce and for ever, but *pro. tem. *But it may not be amiss,\nperhaps, to condense the linguistic case against the \"Ape\nancestor\" theory: --\n\nLanguages have their phases of growth, etc., like all else in\nnature. It is almost certain that the great linguistic families\npass through three stages.\n\n(1) All words are roots and merely placed in juxtaposition (Radical\nlanguages).\n\n(2) One root defines the other, and becomes merely a determinative\nelement (Agglutinative).\n\n(3) The determinative element (the determinating meaning of which\nhas long lapsed) unites into a whole with the formative element\n(Inflected).\n\nThe problem then is: Whence these ROOTS? Max Muller argues that\nthe existence of these *ready-made materials of speech *is\na proof that man cannot be the crown of a long organic series.\nThis *potentiality of forming roots *is the great crux which\nmaterialists almost invariably avoid.\n\nVon Hartmann explains it as a manifestation of the \"Unconscious,\"\nand admits its cogency *versus *mechanical Atheism. Hartmann\nis a fair representative of the Metaphysician and Idealist of\nthe present age.\n\nThe argument has never been met by the non-pantheistic Evolutionists.\nTo say with Schmidt: \"Forsooth are we to halt before the\norigin of language?\" is an avowal of dogmatism and of speedy\ndefeat. (Cf. his \"*Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism,*\"*\n*p. 304.)\n\nWe respect those men of science who, wise in their generation,\nsay: \"Prehistoric Past being utterly beyond our powers of\ndirect observation, we are too honest, too devoted to the truth\n-- or what we regard as truth* -- *to speculate upon the\nunknown, giving out our unproven theories along with facts absolutely\nestablished in modern Science.\" . . . . \"The borderland\nof (metaphysical) knowledge is best left to time, which is the\nbest test as to truth\" (*A Modern Zoroastrian, p. *136).\n\nThis is a wise and an honest sentence in the mouth of a materialist.\nBut when a Haeckel, after just saying that \"*historical\n*events of\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 663 PROOFS OF OUR \"NOBLE DESCENT.\"\n\npast time . . \" having \"occurred many *millions of\nyears ago,* *. . . are for ever removed from direct observation,\"\nand that neither geology nor phylogeny** can or will \"rise\nto the position of a real *exact *science,\" then*\ninsists *on the development of *all* organisms* -- *\"from\nthe lowest vertebrate to the highest, from Amphioxus to man\"\n-- we ask for a weightier proof than he can give. Mere \"*empirical\n*sources of knowledge,\" so extolled by the author of \"*Anthropogeny*\"*\n-*- when he has to be satisfied with the qualification for\nhis own views* -- *are not competent to settle problems lying\nbeyond their domain; nor is it the province of exact science to\nplace any reliance on them.*** If \"empirical\"* --\n*and Haeckel declares so himself repeatedly* -- *then\nthey are no better, nor any more reliable, in the sight of *exact\n*research, when extended into the remote past, than our Occult\nteachings of the East, both having to be placed on quite the same\nlevel. Nor are his *phylogenetic and palingenetic *speculations\ntreated in any better way by the real scientists, than are our\ncyclic repetitions of the evolution of the Great in the minor\nraces, and the original order of evolutions. For the province\nof exact, real Science, materialistic though it be, is to carefully\navoid anything like guess-work, speculation which *cannot be\n*verified; in short, all *suppressio veri *and all *suggestio\nfalsi. *The business of the man of exact Science is to observe,\neach in his chosen department, the phenomena of nature; to record,\ntabulate, compare and classify the facts, down to the smallest\nminutiae which *are presented to the observation of the senses\nwith the help of all the exquisite mechanism that modern invention\nsupplies, not by the aid of metaphysical flights of fancy. *All\nthat he has a legitimate right to do, is to correct by the assistance\nof physical instruments the\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* It thus appears that in its anxiety to prove our noble descent\nfrom the catarrhine \"baboon,\" Haeckel's school has pushed\nthe times of pre-historic man millions of years back. (*See\n*\"*Pedigree of Man,*\"* *p. 273.) Occultists,\nrender thanks to science for such corroboration of our claims!\n\n** This seems a poor compliment to pay Geology, which is not a\nspeculative but as exact a science as astronomy -- save, perhaps\nits too risky chronological speculations. It is mainly a \"Descriptive\"\nas opposed to an \"Abstract\" Science.\n\n*** Such newly-coined words as \"*perigenesis of plastids*,\"\n\"plastidule Souls\" (!), and others less comely, invented\nby Haeckel, may be very learned and correct in so far as they\nmay express very graphically the ideas in his own vivid fancy.\nAs a *fact, *however, they remain for his less imaginative\ncolleagues painfully *caenogenetic *-- to use his own terminology;\n*i.e.*, for* true* Science they are *spurious *speculations\nso long as they are derived from \"empirical sources.\"\nTherefore, when he seeks to prove that \"the origin of man\nfrom other mammals, and most directly from the catarrhine ape,\nis a *deductive law *that follows necessarily from *the\ninductive *law of the theory of descent\" (\"*Anthropogeny,*\"*\n*p. 392) -- his no less learned foes (du Bois-Reymond -- for\none) have a right to see in this sentence a *mere jugglery of\nwords*; a* *\"*testimonium paupertatis *of natural\nscience\"* -- *as he himself complains, calling them,\nin return, *ignoramuses *(see \"Pedigree of Man,\"\nNotes).\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 664 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\ndefects or illusions of his own coarser vision, auditory powers,\nand other senses. He has no right to trespass on the grounds of\nmetaphysics and psychology. His duty is to verify and to rectify\nall the facts that *fall under his direct *observation; to\nprofit by the experiences and mistakes of the Past in endeavouring\nto trace the working of a certain concatenation of cause and effects,\nwhich, but only by its constant and unvarying repetition, may\nbe called A **L**AW. This it is which a man of science\nis expected to do, if he would become a teacher of men and remain\ntrue to his original programme of natural or physical sciences.\nAny side-way path from this royal road becomes *speculation.*\n\nInstead of keeping to this, what does many a so-called man of\nscience do in these days? He rushes into the domains of pure metaphysics,\nwhile deriding it. He delights in rash conclusions and calls it\n\"a *deductive *law from the *inductive *law\"\nof a theory based upon and drawn out of the depths of his own\nconsciousness: that consciousness being perverted by, and honeycombed\nwith, one-sided materialism. He attempts to explain the \"origin\"\nof things, which are yet embosomed only in his own conceptions.\nHe attacks spiritual beliefs and religious traditions millenniums\nold, and denounces everything, save his own hobbies, as superstition.\nHe suggests theories of the Universe, a Cosmogony developed by\nblind, mechanical forces of nature alone, far more *miraculous*\n*and impossible *than even one based upon the assumption\nof *fiat lux *out of *nihil -*- and tries to astonish\nthe world by such a wild theory; which, being known to emanate\nfrom a scientific brain, is taken on *blind faith *as very\nscientific and the outcome of **S**CIENCE.\n\nAre those the opponents Occultism would dread? Most decidedly\nnot. For such theories are no better treated by *real *(not\nempirical) Science than our own. Haeckel, hurt in his vanity by\ndu Bois-Reymond, never tires of complaining publicly of the latter's\nonslaught on his fantastic theory of descent. Rhapsodizing on\n\"the exceedingly rich storehouse of empirical evidence,\"\nhe calls those \"recognised physiologists\" who oppose\nevery speculation of his drawn from the said \"storehouse\"\n-- *ignorant* men. \"If many men,\" he declares --\n\"and among them even some scientists of repute -- hold that\nthe whole of phylogeny is a castle in the air, and genealogical\ntrees (from monkeys?) are empty plays of phantasy, they only in\nspeaking thus demonstrate their ignorance of that wealth of *empirical\nsources of knowledge *to which reference has already been made\"\n(\"Pedigree of Man,\" p. 273).\n\nWe open Webster's Dictionary and read the definitions of the word\n\"empirical\": \"Depending upon experience or observation\nalone, *without due regard to modern science and theory.*\"*\n*This applies to the Occultists, Spiritualists, Mystics, etc.,\netc. Again, \"an *Empiric -- *One who confines himself\nto applying the results of his own observations\" (only)\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 665 MR. HUXLEY APPLIES AN \"EXTINGUISHER.\"\n\n(which is Haeckel's case); \"one *wanting Science *.\n. . . an ignorant and unlicensed practitioner; a quack; a CHARLATAN.\"\n\nNo Occultist or \"magician,\" has ever been treated to\nany worse epithets. Yet the Occultist remains on his own metaphysical\ngrounds, and does not endeavour to rank *his knowledge, *the\nfruits of *his *personal observation and experience, among\nthe *exact *sciences of modern learning. He keeps within\nhis legitimate sphere, where he is master. But what is one to\nthink of a rank materialist, whose duty is clearly traced before\nhim, who uses such an expression as this: --\n\n\"The origin of man from other mammals, and most directly\nfrom the catarrhine ape, *is a deductive law, that follows necessarily\nfrom the inductive law of the ***T**HEORY OF **D**ESCENT.\"\n(\"*Anthropogeny,*\"* p. *392).\n\nA \"theory\" is simply a hypothesis, a speculation, *and\nno law. *To say otherwise is only one of the many liberties\ntaken now-a-days by scientists. They enunciate an absurdity, and\nthen hide it behind the shield of Science. Any deduction from\ntheoretical speculation is no better than *a speculation on\na speculation. *Now Sir W. Hamilton has already shown that\nthe word theory is now used \"in a very loose and improper\nsense\" . . . . \"that it is convertible into *hypothesis,*\nand* hypothesis *is commonly used as another term for *conjecture,\n*whereas the terms 'theory' and 'theoretical' are properly\nused in opposition to the term *practice *and* practical.*\"\n\nBut modern Science puts an extinguisher on the latter statement,\nand mocks at the idea. Materialistic philosophers and Idealists\nof Europe and America may be agreed with the Evolutionists as\nto the physical origin of man -- yet it will never become a general\ntruth with the true metaphysician, and the latter defies the materialists\nto make good their arbitrary assumptions. That the ape-theory\ntheme* of Vogt and Darwin, on which the Huxley-Haeckelians have\ncomposed of late such extraordinary variations, is far less scientific\n-- because clashing with the fundamental laws of that theme itself\n-- than ours can ever be\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* The *mental *barrier between man and ape, characterized\nby Huxley as an \"*enormous gap, *a distance *practically\nimmeasurable*\"! !* *is, indeed, in itself conclusive.\nCertainly it constitutes a standing puzzle to the materialist,\nwho relies on the frail reed of \"natural selection.\"\nThe physiological differences between Man and the Apes are in\nreality* -- *despite a curious community of certain features*\n-- *equally striking. Says Dr. Schweinfurth, one of the most\ncautious and experienced of naturalists: --\n\n\"In modern times there are no animals in creation that have\nattracted more attention from the scientific student than the\ngreat quadrumana (the anthropoids), bearing such a striking resemblance\nto the human form as to have justified the epithet of anthropomorphic\nbeing conferred on them. . . . But *all investigation at present\nonly leads human* *intelligence to a confession of its insufficiency*;*\n*and nowhere is caution more to be advocated, *nowhere is\npremature judgment more to be deprecated than in the attempt to\nbridge over the *MYSTERIOUS CHASM *which separates man and\nbeast.*\"* *\"*Heart of Africa*\"*\n*i., 520.\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 666 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nshown to be, is very easy of demonstration. Let the reader only\nturn to the excellent work on \"Human Species\" by the\ngreat French naturalist de Quatrefages, and our statement will\nat once be verified.\n\nMoreover, between the esoteric teaching concerning the origin\nof man and Darwin's speculations, no man, unless he is a rank\nmaterialist, will hesitate. This is the description given by Mr.\nDarwin of \"the earliest ancestors of man.\"\n\n\"They were without doubt once covered with hair; both sexes\nhaving beards; their ears were pointed and capable of movement;\n*and their bodies were provided with a tail, *having the\nproper muscles. Their limbs and bodies were acted on by many muscles\nwhich now only occasionally reappear in man, but which are still\nnormally present in the quadrumana. . . . The foot, judging from\nthe condition of the great toe in the foetus, was then prehensile,\nand our progenitors, no doubt, were *arboreal in their habits,\n*frequenting some warm forest-clad land, and the males were\nprovided with canine teeth which served as formidable weapons.\n. . .\"*\n\nDarwin connects him with the type of the tailed catarrhines, \"and\nconsequently removes him a stage backward in the scale of evolution.\nThe English naturalist is not satisfied to take his stand upon\nthe ground of his own doctrines, and, like Haeckel, *on this\npoint places himself in direct variance with one of the fundamental\nlaws *which constitute the principal charm of Darwinism . .\n. \" And then the learned French naturalist proceeds to show\nhow this fundamental law is broken. \"In fact,\" he says,\n\"in the theory of Darwin, transmutations do not take place,\neither by chance or in every direction. They are ruled by certain\nlaws which are due to the organization itself. If an organism\nis once modified in a given direction, it can undergo secondary\nor tertiary transmutations, but will still preserve the impress\nof the original. It is the law of *permanent characterization,\nwhich alone *permits Darwin to explain the filiation of groups,\ntheir characteristics, and their numerous relations. It is by\nvirtue of this law that *all* the descendants of the first\nmollusc have been molluscs; *all* the descendants of the\nfirst vertebrate have been vertebrates. It is clear that this\nconstitutes one of the foundations of the doctrine. . . . It follows\nthat two beings belonging to two distinct types can be referred\nto *a common ancestor, *but the one cannot be the descendant\nof the other\"; (*p*. 106).\n\n\"Now man and ape present a very striking contrast in *respect\nto type. *Their organs . . . correspond almost exactly term\nfor term: but these\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* A ridiculous instance of evolutionist contradictions is afforded\nby Schmidt (\"*Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism,*\"*\n*on page 292). He says, \"Man's kinship with the apes is\n*not impugned *by the *bestial strength *of the teeth\nof the male orang or gorilla.\" Mr. Darwin, on the contrary,\nendows this fabulous being with teeth used as weapons!\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 667 A WALKER OR A CLIMBER.\n\norgans are arranged after a very different plan. In man they are\nso arranged that he is essentially a *walker, *while in apes\nthey necessitate his being a *climber*. . . . There is here\nan anatomical and mechanical distinction. . . . A glance at the\npage where Huxley has figured side by side a human skeleton and\nthe skeletons of the most highly developed apes is a sufficiently\nconvincing proof.\"\n\nThe consequence of these facts, from the point of view of the\nlogical application of the law of *permanent characterizations,\n*is that man cannot be descended from an ancestor who is already\ncharacterized as an ape, any more than a catarrhine tailless ape\ncan be descended from a tailed catarrhine. A *walking animal\n*cannot be descended from a *climbing *one.\n\n\"Vogt, in placing man among the *primates, *declares\nwithout hesitation that *the lowest class of apes have passed\nthe landmark *(the common ancestor), from which the different\ntypes of this family have originated and diverged.\" (This\nancestor of the apes, occult science sees in the lowest human\ngroup during the Atlantean period, as shown before.) . . . \"We\nmust, then, place the origin of man beyond the last apes,\"\ngoes on de Quatrefages, thus corroborating our Doctrine, \"if\nwe would adhere to one of the laws most emphatically necessary\nto the Darwinian theory. We then come to the prosimiae of Haeckel,\nthe loris, indris, etc. But those animals also are climbers; we\nmust go further, therefore, in search of our first direct ancestor.\nBut the genealogy by Haeckel brings us from the latter to the\nmarsupials. . . . From men to the Kangaroo the distance is certainly\ngreat. Now neither living nor extinct fauna show the intermediate\ntypes which ought to serve as landmarks. This difficulty causes\nbut slight embarrassment to Darwin.* We know that he considers\nthe *want of information *upon similar questions *as a\nproof in his favour. *Haeckel doubtless is as little embarrassed.\nHe admits the existence of an absolutely *theoretical pithecoid\nman.*\"\n\n\"Thus, since it has been proved that, according to Darwinism\nitself, the origin of man must be placed beyond the eighteenth\nstage, and since it becomes, in consequence, *necessary*\nto fill up the gap between marsupials and man, will Haeckel admit\nthe existence *of four unknown intermediate groups *instead\nof one?\" asks de Quatrefages. \"Will he complete his\ngenealogy in this manner? It is not for me to answer.\" (\"*The\nHuman Species,*\"* p. *107-108.)\n\nBut see Haeckel's famous genealogy, in \"The Pedigree of Man,\"\ncalled by him \"Ancestral Series of Man.\" In the \"Second\nDivision\"\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* According even to a *fellow-thinker, *Professor Schmidt,\nDarwin has evolved \"a certainly not flattering, and perhaps\nin *many points an incorrect, *portrait of our presumptive\nancestors in the dawn of humanity.\" (\"*Doctrine of\nDescent and Darwinism,*\"* *p. 284.)\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 668 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n(Eighteenth Stage) he describes \"Prosimiae, allied to the\nLoris (Stenops) and Makis (Lemur) as without marsupial bones and\ncloaca, but with *placenta.*\"* *And now turn to\nde Quatrefages' \"*The Human Species,*\"* pp. *109,\n110, and see his proofs, based on the latest discoveries, to show\nthat \"the prosimiae of Haeckel have no *decidua *and\na diffuse placenta.\" They cannot be the ancestors of the\napes even, let alone man, according to a fundamental law of Darwin\nhimself, as the great French Naturalist shows. But this does not\ndismay the \"animal theorists\" in the least, for self-contradiction\nand paradoxes are the very soul of modern Darwinism. Witness --\nMr. Huxley. Having himself shown, with regard to fossil man and\nthe \"missing link,\" that \"neither in quaternary\nages nor at the present time *does any intermediary being fill\nthe gap *which separates man from the Troglodyte\"; and\nthat to \"deny the existence of this gap *would be as reprehensible\nas absurd,*\"* *the great man of Science denies his\nown words *in* *actu *by supporting with all the weight\nof his scientific authority that *most *\"absurd\"\nof all theories* -- *the* descent of man from an ape!*\n\n\"This genealogy,\" says de Quatrefages, \"*is wrong\nthroughout, *and is founded on a material error.\" Indeed,\nHaeckel bases his descent of man on the 17th and 18th stages (*See\nAveling*'*s *\"*Pedigree of Man,*\"* p.*\n77), the marsupialia and prosimiae* -- *(genus Haeckelii?).\nApplying the latter term to the *Lemuridae -- *hence making\nof them animals with a *placenta -- he commits *a zoological\nblunder. For after having himself divided mammals according to\ntheir anatomical differences into two groups: the *indeciduata,\n*which have *no decidua *(or special membrane uniting\nthe placentae), and the *deciduata, *those who possess it:\nhe includes the *prosimiae *in the latter group. Now we have\nshown elsewhere what other men of science had to say to this.\nAs de Quatrefages says, \"The anatomical investigations of\n. . . Milne Edwards and Grandidier upon these animals . . . place\nit beyond all doubt that the prosimiae of Haeckel have no decidua\nand a diffuse placenta. They are *indeciduata. *Far from\nany possibility of their being the ancestors of the apes, according\nto the principles laid down by Haeckel himself, *they cannot\nbe regarded even as the ancestors of the zonoplacental mammals\n*. . . and ought to be connected with the pachydermata, the\nedentata, and the cetacea\"; (*p*. 110). And yet Haeckel's\ninventions pass off with some as *exact science!*\n\nThe above mistake, if indeed, one, is not even hinted at in Haeckel's\n\"Pedigree of Man,\" translated by Aveling. If the excuse\nmay stand good that at the time the famous \"genealogies\"\nwere made, \"the embryogenesis of the prosimiae was not known,\"\nit is familiar now. We shall see whether the next edition of Aveling's\ntranslation will have this important error rectified, or if the\n17th and 18th stages remain\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 669 A PITHECOID MAN WANTED.\n\nas they are to blind the profane, as one of the *real* intermediate\nlinks. But, as the French naturalist observes* -- *\"their\n(Darwin's and Haeckel's) process is always the same, considering\nthe *unknown *as a proof in favour of their theory.\"\n(*Ibid.*)\n\nIt comes to this. Grant to man an immortal Spirit and Soul; endow\nthe whole animate and inanimate creation with the monadic principle\ngradually evolving from the latent and passive into active and\npositive polarity -- and Haeckel will not have a leg to stand\nupon, whatever his admirers may say.\n\nBut there are important divergences even between Darwin and Haeckel.\nWhile the former makes us proceed from the *tailed* catarrhine,\nHaeckel traces our hypothetical ancestor to the *tailless *ape,\nthough, at the same time, he places him in a hypothetical \"stage\"\nimmediately preceding this: \"*Menocerca with tails*\"*\n*(19th stage).\n\nNevertheless, we have one thing in common with the Darwinian school:\nit is the law of gradual and extremely slow evolution, embracing\nmany million years. The chief quarrel, it appears, is with regard\nto the nature of the primitive \"Ancestor.\" We shall\nbe told that the Dhyan Chohan, or the \"progenitor\" of\nManu, is a hypothetical being unknown on *the physical plane.\n*We reply that it was believed in by the whole of antiquity,\nand by nine-tenths of the present humanity; whereas not only is\nthe *pithecoid man, *or \"ape-man,\" a purely hypothetical\ncreature of Haeckel's creation, unknown and untraceable on this\nearth, but further its genealogy* -- *as invented by him*\n-- *clashes with scientific facts and all the known data of\nmodern discovery in Zoology. It is simply absurd, even as a fiction.\nAs de Quatrefages demonstrates in a few words, Haeckel \"admits\nthe existence of an *absolutely theoretical pithecoid man*\"*\n-- *a hundred times more difficult to accept than any Deva\nancestor. And it is not the only instance in which he proceeds\nin a similar manner in order to complete his genealogical table;\nand he admits very *naively *his inventions himself. Does\nhe not confess the non-existence of his *sozura *(14th stage)\n-- a creature entirely *unknown to science -- *by confessing\nover his own signature, that* -- *\"The proof of its\nexistence arises from the necessity of an intermediate type between\nthe 13th and the 14th stages\"!\n\nIf so, we might maintain with as much scientific right, that the\nproof of the existence of our three ethereal races, and the three-eyed\nmen of the Third and Fourth Root-Races \"arises also from\nthe necessity of an intermediate type\" between the *animal\n*and the gods. What reason would the Haeckelians have to protest\nin this special case?\n\nOf course there is a ready answer: \"Because we do not grant\nthe presence of the monadic essence.\" The manifestation of\nthe Logos as individual* consciousness *in the animal and\nhuman creation is not accepted\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 670 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nby exact science, nor does it cover the whole ground, of course.\nBut the failures of science and its arbitrary assumptions are\nfar greater on the whole than* any \"extravagant\" esoteric\ndoctrine can ever furnish. Even thinkers of the school of Von\nHartmann have become tainted with the general epidemic. They accept\nthe Darwinian Anthropology (more or less), though they also postulate\nthe individual Ego as a manifestation of the Unconscious (the\nWestern presentation of the Logos or Primeval Divine Thought).\nThey say the evolution of the physical man is from the animal,\nbut that mind in its various phases is altogether a thing apart\nfrom material facts, though organism (as an *upadhi*)*\nis *necessary for ITS manifestation.\n\n-------\n\n**P**LASTIDULAR **S**OULS, AND **C**ONSCIOUS **N**ERVE-CELLS.\n\nBut one can never see the end of such wonders with Haeckel and\nhis school, whom the Occultists and Theosophists have every right\nto consider as materialistic tramps *trespassing *on private\nmetaphysical grounds. Not satisfied with the paternity of *Bathybius\n*(Haeckelii), \"plastidule souls,\"** and \"atom-souls\"\nare now invented by them, on the basis of purely blind *mechanical\n*forces of matter. We are informed that \"the study of\nthe evolution of soul-life shows that this has worked its way\nup from the lower stages of the simple *cell-soul, *through\nan astonishing series of gradual stages in evolution, up *to\nthe soul of man.*\"* *(\"*Present Position of\nEvolution,*\"* *p. 266.)\n\n\"Astonishing\"* -- *truly, based as this wild speculation\nis on the *Consciousness *of the \"nerve cells.\"\nFor as he tells us, \"Little as we are in a position, at the\npresent time, to explain fully the nature of consciousness,***\nyet the comparative and genetic observation of it clearly shows\nthat it is only a higher and more complex *function of the nerve\ncells.*\"* *(Ibid, note 22.)\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Of course the Esoteric system of Fourth Round Evolution is much\nmore complex than the paragraph and quotations referred to categorically\nassert. It is practically a *reversal *-- both in embryological\ninference and succession in time of species -- of the current\nWestern conception.\n\n** According to Haeckel, there are also *cell-souls*;*\n*\"an inorganic *molecular soul*\"* *without,\nand a \"plastidular soul with (or possessing) memory\".\nWhat are our esoteric teachings to this? The *divine and human*\nsoul of the seven principles in man must, of course, pale and\ngive away before such a stupendous revelation!\n\n*** A valuable confession, this. Only it makes the attempt to\ntrace the *descent of *Consciousness in man as well as of\nhis physical body from *Bathybius Haeckelii *still more humorous\nand *empirical, *in the sense of Webster's second definition.\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 671 HAECKEL CREATES SOULS.\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer's song on Consciousness* -- *is sung,\nit seems, and may henceforth be safely stored up in the lumber\nroom of obsolete speculations. Where, however, do Haeckel's \"complex\nfunctions\" of *his *scientific \"nerve-cells\"\nland him? Once more right into the Occult and mystic teachings\nof the Kabala about the descent of souls as conscious and unconscious\natoms; among the Pythagorean MONAD and the* monads *of Leibnitz*\n-- *and the \"gods, monads, and atoms\" of our esoteric\nteaching;* into the *dead letter *of Occult teachings, left\nto the *amateur *Kabalists and professors of ceremonial magic.\nFor this is what he says, while explaining his newly-coined terminology:\n--\n\n\"Plastidule-Souls; the plastidules or protoplasmic molecules,\nthe smallest, homogeneous parts of the protoplasm are, on our\nplastic theory, to be regarded as the active factors of all life-functions.\nThe plastidular soul differs from the inorganic molecular soul\n*in that it* *possesses memory.*\"* *(\"*Pedigree\nof Man,*\"* Note, p. *296.)\n\nThis he develops in his mirific lecture on the \"*Perigenesis\nof the Plastidule, *or the wave-motions of living particles.\"\nIt is an improvement on Darwin's theory of \"Pangenesis,\"\nand a further approach, a cautious move towards \"magic.\"\nThe former is a conjecture that certain of the actual and identical\natoms which had belonged to ancestral bodies \"are thus transmitted\nthrough their descendants for generation after generation, so\nthat we are literally 'flesh of the flesh' of the primeval creature\nwho has developed into man in the later . . . period\" --\nexplains the author of \"The Modern Zoroastrian\" (*in\n*\"*Primitive Polarities,*\"* *etc.). The\nlatter (Occultism) teaches that* -- *(*a*) the life-atoms\nof our (*Prana*) life-principle are never entirely lost when\na man dies. That the atoms best impregnated with the life-principle\n(an independent, eternal, conscious factor) are partially transmitted\nfrom father to son by heredity, and partially are drawn once more\ntogether and become the animating principle of the new body in\nevery new incarnation of\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* Those who take the opposite view and look upon the existence\nof the human soul,* -- *\"as a supernatural, a spiritual\nphenomenon, conditioned by forces altogether different from *ordinary\nphysical* forces,\" . . . \"mock,\" he thinks,\n\"in consequence, all explanation that is simply scientific.\"\nThey have no right it seems, to assert that \"psychology is,\nin part, or in whole, a spiritual science, not a physical one.\"\n. . . The new discovery by Haeckel (one taught for thousands of\nyears in all the Eastern religions, however), that the animals\nhave souls, will, and sensation, hence soul-functions, leads him\nto make of psychology the science of the zoologists. The archaic\nteaching that the \"Soul\" (the animal and human souls,\nor Kama and *Manas*)* *\"has its developmental history\"\n-- is claimed by Haekel as his own discovery and innovation on\nan \"untrodden (?) path\"! He (Haeckel) will work out\nthe comparative evolution of the soul in man and in other animals.\n. . . \"The comparative morphology of the soul-organs, and\nthe comparative physiology of the soul-functions, both founded\non Evolution, thus become the psychological (really materialistic)\nproblem of the scientific man.\" (*Cell-souls and* *Soul-cells,\n*p. 137, \"*Pedigree of Man.*\")\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 672 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nthe Monads. Because (*b*), as the *individual *Soul\nis ever the same, so are the atoms of the lower principles (body,\nits astral, or *life double, *etc*.*)*, *drawn\nas they are by affinity and Karmic law always to the same individuality\nin a series of various bodies, etc., etc.*\n\nTo be just, and, to say the least, *logical, *our modern\nHaeckelians ought to pass a resolution that henceforth the \"Perigenesis\nof the Plastidule,\" and like lectures, should be bound up\nwith those on \"Esoteric Buddhism,\" and \"The Seven\nPrinciples in Man.\" Thus the public will have a chance, at\nany rate, of judging after comparison which of the two teachings\nis the *most *or the *least *ABSURD, even from the standpoint\nof* materialistic* and* exact *Science!\n\nNow the Occultists, who trace every atom in the universe, whether\nan aggregate or single, to One Unity, or Universal *Life*;\nwho do not recognize that anything in Nature can be *inorganic*;*\n*who know of no such thing as *dead* matter -- the Occultists\nare consistent with their doctrine of Spirit and Soul when speaking\nof *memory *in every atom, of *will and sensation. *But\nwhat can a materialist mean by the qualification? The law of *biogenesis,\n*in the sense applied to it by the Haeckelians* -- *\"is\nthe result of the ignorance on the part of the man of science\nof *occult *physics.\" We know and speak of \"life-atoms\"\n-- and of \"sleeping-atoms\" -- because we regard these\ntwo forms of energy -- the kinetic and the potential -- as produced\nby one and the same force or the ONE LIFE, and regard the latter\nas the source and mover of all. But what *is it *that furnished\nwith energy, and especially with *memory, *the \"plastidular\nsouls\" of Haeckel? The \"wave motion of living particles\"\nbecomes comprehensible on the theory of a Spiritual ONE LIFE,\nof a universal Vital principle independent of *our* matter,\nand manifesting as *atomic energy *only on *our *plane\nof consciousness. It is that which, individualized in the human\ncycle, is transmitted from father to son.\n\nNow Haeckel, modifying Darwin's theory, suggests \"most plausibly,\"\nas the author of the \"*Modern Zoroastrian*\"*\n*thinks, \"that not the identical atoms, but their peculiar\nmotions and mode of aggregation have been thus transmitted\"\n(by heredity).\n\nIf Haeckel, or any other Scientist, knew more than any of them\ndoes of the nature of the atom, he would not have improved the\noccasion in this way. For he only states, in a more *metaphysical\nlanguage *than Darwin, one and the same thing. The life-principle,\nor *life energy,*\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* (*See *\"*Transmigration of the Life Atoms,*\"*\n*\"*Five years of Theosophy,*\"* p.* 533-539).\nThe collective aggregation of these atoms forms thus the *Anima\nMundi *of our Solar system, the *soul *of our little universe,\neach atom of which is of course a *soul,* a monad, a little\nuniverse endowed with consciousness, hence with *memory *(*Vol.\nI., Part III., *\"*Gods, Monads and Atoms.*\")\n\n[[Vol. 2, Page 673]] THE MEANING OF SOUL WITH HAECKEL.\n\nwhich is omnipresent, eternal, indestructible, is a *force *and\na PRINCIPLE as* noumenon, *atoms*, as phenomenon. *It\nis one and the same thing, and cannot be considered as separate\nexcept in materialism.*\n\nFurther, Haeckel enunciates concerning the Atom Souls that which,\nat first sight, appears as occult as a Monad of Leibnitz. \"The\nrecent contest as to the nature of atoms, which we must regard\nas in some form or other the ultimate factors in all physical\nand chemical processes,\" he tells us -- \"seems to be\ncapable of the easiest settlement, by the conception that these\nvery minute masses possess, as centres of force, *a persistent\nsoul, that every atom has sensation *and the power of movement.\"\n\nHe does not say a word concerning the fact that this is Leibnitz's\ntheory, and one pre-eminently occult. Nor does he understand the\nterm \"Soul\" as we do; for, with Haeckel it is simply,\nalong with consciousness, the production of the grey matter of\nthe brain, a thing which, as the \"cell-soul, is as indissolubly\nbound up with the protoplasmic body as is the *human soul with\nthe brain and spinal cord.*\"* *(*Ibid.*)*\n*He rejects the conclusions of Kant, Herbert Spencer, of du\nBois-Reymond and Tyndall. The latter expresses the opinion of\nall the great men of science, as of the greatest thinkers of this\nand the past ages, in saying that \"the passage from the physics\nof the brain *to the corresponding facts of Consciousness is\nunthinkable. *Were our minds and senses so . . . illuminated\nas to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the brain;\nwere we capable of following all their motions, all their groupings\n. . . electric discharges . . . we should be as far as ever from\nthe solution of the problem . . . *The chasm between the two\nclasses of Phenomena would still remain intellectually impassable.*\"*\n*But the complex function of the nerve-cells of the great German\nEMPIRIC, or, in other words, his Consciousness, will not permit\nhim to follow the conclusions of the greatest thinkers of our\nglobe. *He is greater than they. *He asserts this, and *protests\n*against all. \"No one has the right\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* In \"*The Transmigration of the Life-Atoms,*\"*\n*we say, to explain better a position which is but too often\nmisunderstood: -- \"It is *omnipresent *. . . . though\n(on this plane of manifestation) often in a dormant state* --\n*as in stone. The definition which states that when this indestructible\nforce is disconnected with one set of atoms (*molecules ought*\n*to* have been said) it becomes immediately attracted by\nothers, does not imply that it entirely abandons the first set\n(because the atoms themselves would then disappear), but only\nthat it transfers its *vis viva*, or life power* -- *the\nenergy of motion, to another set. But because it manifests itself\nin the next set as what is called Kinetic energy, it does not\nfollow that the first set is deprived of it altogether; for it\nis still in it, as potential energy or life latent,\" etc.,\netc. Now what can Haeckel mean by his \"not identical atoms\nbut their peculiar motion and mode of aggregation,\" if it\nis not the same *Kinetic *energy we have been explaining?\nHe must have read Paracelsus and studied \"Five Years of Theosophy,\"\nwithout properly digesting the teachings, before evolving such\ntheories.\n\n####### [[Vol. 2, Page]] 674 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nto hold that in the future *we* (Haeckel) shall not be able\nto pass beyond those limits of our knowledge that to day seem\nimpassable\"; and he quotes from Darwin's introduction to\nthe \"Descent of Man\" these words, which he modestly\napplies to his scientific opponents and himself: \"It is always\nthose *who know little, *and not those who *know much,\n*that positively affirm that this or that problem will never\nbe solved by Science.\"\n\nThe world may rest satisfied. That day is not far off when the\n\"thrice great\" Haeckel will have shown (to his own satisfaction)\nthat the consciousness of Sir I. Newton was, physiologically speaking,\nbut the reflex action (or *minus *consciousness) caused by\nthe *peri-genesis *of* *the plastidules of our common\nancestor and old friend, the *Moneron Haeckelii. *The fact\nthat the said \"Bathybius\" has been found out and *exposed\n*as a pretender simulating the organic substance *it was\nnot*;* *and since, among the children of men, Lot's wife\nalone (and even this, only after her disagreeable metamorphosis\ninto a salt pillar) could claim the pinch of salt *it is, *as\nher forefather -- will not dismay him at all. He will go on asserting,\nas coolly as he has always done, that it was no more than the\npeculiar mode and motion of the ghost of the long-vanished atoms\nof our \"Father Bathybius,\" which, transmitted across\naeons of time into the cell-tissue of the grey matter of the brains\nof every great man, caused Sophocles and AEschylus, as well as\nShakespeare, to write their tragedies, Newton, his \"Principia,\"\nHumboldt, his \"Cosmos,\" etc. etc. It prompted Haeckel\nto invent Graeco-Latin names three inches long, pretending to\nmean a good deal, and meaning -- nothing.\n\nOf course we are quite aware that the true, honest evolutionist\nagrees with us; and that he is the first to say that not only\nis the geological record imperfect, but that there are enormous\ngaps in the series of hitherto discovered fossils, which can never\nbe filled. He will tell us, moreover, that \"no evolutionist\nassumes that man is descended *from any existing ape or any\nextinct ape either,*\"* *but that man and apes originated\n*probably *aeons back, in some common root stock. Still,\nas de Quatrefages points out, he will claim as an evidence corroborating\nhis (the evolutionist's) claim, even this wealth of absent proofs,\nsaying that \"all living forms have not been preserved in\nthe fossil series, the chances of preservation being few and far\nbetween,\" even primitive man \"burying or *burning\n*his dead\" (A. Wilson). This is just what we ourselves\nclaim. It is just as* possible *that future should have in\nstore for us the discovery of the giant skeleton of an Atlantean,\n30ft. high, as the fossil of a pithecoid \"missing link\":\nonly the former is more *probable.*\n\n-------\n\nNext Section\n\nContents",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}