Page 59 (part 5)

These cosmic children, like their pigmy inhabitants, are at first nuclei; then ovules; then gradually mature; and becoming [[Vol. 2, Page]] 189 NATURALISTS INVENTING LINKS. mothers, in their turn, develop mineral, vegetable, animal, and human forms. From centre to circumference, from the imperceptible vesicle to the uttermost conceivable bounds of the Kosmos, those glorious thinkers, the Occultists, trace cycle merging into cycle, containing and contained in an endless series. The embryo evolving in its pre-natal sphere, the individual in his family, the family in the state, the state in mankind, the Earth in our system, that system in its central universe, the universe in the Kosmos, and the Kosmos in the ONE CAUSE . . . thus runs their philosophy of evolution, differing as we see, from that of Haeckel: -- "All are but parts of one stupendous whole, Whose body Nature is, and (Parabrahm) the soul . . ." These are the proofs of Occultism, and they are rejected by Science. But how is the chasm between the mind of man and animal to be bridged in this case? How, if the anthropoid and Homo primigenius had, argumenti gratia, a common ancestor (in the way modern speculation puts it), did the two groups diverge so widely from one another as regards mental capacity? True, the Occultist may be told that in every case Occultism does what Science repeats; it gives a common ancestor to ape and man, since it makes the former issue from primeval man. Ay, but that "primeval man" was man only in external form. He was mindless and soulless at the time he begot, with a female animal monster, the forefather of a series of apes. This speculation -- if speculation it be -- is at least logical, and fills the chasm between the mind of man and animal. Thus it accounts for and explains the hitherto unaccountable and inexplicable. The fact that, in the present stage of evolution, Science is almost certain that no issue can follow from the union of man and animal, is considered and explained elsewhere. Now what is the fundamental difference between the accepted (or nearly so) conclusions, as enunciated in " The Pedigree of Man, " viz., that man and ape have a common ancestor; and the teachings of Occultism, which deny this conclusion and accept the fact that all things and all living beings have originated from one common source? Materialistic science makes man evolve gradually to what he is now, and, starting from the first protoplasmic speck called Moneron (which we are told has, like the rest, "originated in the course of immeasurable ages from a few, or from one simple, spontaneously arising original form, that has obeyed one law of evolution"), pass through "unknown and unknowable" types up to the ape, and thence to the human being. Where the transitional shapes are discoverable we are not told; for the simple reason that no "missing links" between man and the apes have ever yet been found, though this fact in no way prevents men like Haeckel from inventing them ad libitum. [[Vol. 2, Page]] 190 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. Nor will they ever be met with; simply, again, because that link which unites man with his real ancestry is searched for on the objective plane and in the material world of forms, whereas it is safely hidden from the microscope and dissecting knife within the animal tabernacle of man himself. We repeat what we have said in Isis Unveiled: -- ". . . . . . . All things had their origin in spirit -- evolution having originally begun from above and proceeded downward, instead of the reverse, as taught in the Darwinian theory. In other words, there has been a gradual materialization of forms until a fixed ultimate of debasement is reached. This point is that at which the doctrine of modern evolution enters into the arena of speculative hypothesis. Arrived at this period we will find it easier to understand Haeckel's Anthropogeny, which traces the pedigree of man 'from its protoplasmic root, sodden in the mud of seas which existed before the oldest of the fossiliferous rocks were deposited,' according to Professor Huxley's exposition. We may believe the man (of the Third Round) evolved 'by gradual modification of an (astral) mammal of ape-like organization' still easier when we remember that (though in a more condensed and less elegant, but still as comprehensible, phraseology) the same theory was said by Berosus to have been taught many thousands of years before his time by the man-fish Oannes or Dagon, the semi-demon of Babylonia* (though on somewhat modified lines). "But what lies back of the Darwinian line of descent? So far as he is concerned nothing but 'unverifiable hypotheses.' For, as he puts it, he views all beings 'as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited.'** He does not attempt to show us who these 'few beings' were. But it answers our purpose quite as well, for, in the admission of their existence at all, resort to the ancients for corroboration and elaboration of the idea receives the stamp of scientific approbation. . . . " Truly, as also said in our first work: "If we accept Darwin's theory of the development of species, we find that his starting-point is placed in front of an open door. We are at liberty with him, to either remain within, or cross the threshold, beyond which lies the limitless and the incomprehensible, or rather the Unutterable. If our mortal language is inadequate to express what our spirit dimly foresees in the great ' Beyond ' -- while on this earth -- it must realize it at some point in the timeless Eternity." But what lies "beyond" Haeckel's theory? Why Bathybius Haeckelii, and no more! A further answer is given in Part III . Addenda. [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * Cory: "Ancient Fragments." ** "Origin of Species," pp. 448, 489, first edition. -------