Page 91 (part 1)

The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 2 [[Vol. 2, Page]] 656 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. § II. THE ANCESTORS MANKIND IS OFFERED BY SCIENCE. --------------------- "The question of questions for mankind -- the problem which underlies all others, and is more deeply interesting than any other -- is the ascertainment of the place which man occupies in Nature, and of his relations to the Universe of things." -- H UXLEY. --------------------- T HE world stands divided this day, and hesitates between divine progenitors -- be they Adam and Eve or the lunar Pitris -- and Bathybius Haeckelii, the gelatinous hermit of the briny deep. Having explained the occult theory, it may now be compared with that of the modem Materialism. The reader is invited to choose between the two after having judged them on their respective merits. We may derive some consolation for the rejection of our divine ancestors, in finding that the Haeckelian speculations receive no better treatment at the hands of strictly exact Science than do our own. Haeckel's phylogenesis is no less laughed at by the foes of his fantastic evolution, by other and greater Scientists, than our primeval races will be. As du Bois-Reymond puts it, we may believe him easily when he says that "ancestral trees of our race sketched in the 'Schopfungs-geschichte' are of about as much value as are the pedigrees of the Homeric heroes in the eyes of the historical critic." This settled, everyone will see that one hypothesis is as good as another. And as we find that German naturalist (Haeckel) himself confessing that neither geology (in its history of the past) nor the ancestral history of organisms will ever "rise to the position of a real exact Science,"* a large margin is thus left to Occult Science to make its annotations and lodge its protests. The world is left to choose between the teachings of Paracelsus, the "Father of Modern Chemistry," and those of Haeckel, the Father of the mythical Sozura. We demand no more. Without presuming to take part in the quarrel of such very learned naturalists as du Bois-Reymond and Haeckel a propos of our blood relationship to "those ancestors (of ours) which have led up from the unicellular classes, Vermes, Acrania, Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia to the Aves" -- one may put in a few words, a question or two, for the information of our readers. Availing ourselves of the opportunity, and bearing [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * "Pedigree of Man." -- " The Proofs of Evolution, " p. 273. [[Vol. 2, Page]] 657 AN UNVERIFIED CHARGE AGAINST THE ANCIENTS. in mind Darwin's theories of natural selection, etc., we would ask Science -- with regard to the origin of the human and animal species -- which theory of evolution of the two herewith described is the more scientific, or the more unscientific, if so preferred. (1). Is it that of an Evolution which starts from the beginning with sexual propagation? (2) . Or that teaching which shows the gradual development of organs; their solidification, and the procreation of each species, at first by simple easy separation from one into two or even several individuals. Then follows a fresh development -- the first step to a species of separate distinct sexes -- the hermaphrodite condition; then again, a kind of Parthenogenesis, "virginal reproduction," when the egg-cells are formed within the body, issuing from it in atomic emanations and becoming matured outside of it; until, finally, after a definite separation into sexes, the human beings begin procreating through sexual connection? Of these two, the former "theory," -- rather, a " revealed fact" -- is enunciated by all the exoteric Bibles (except the Puranas), preeminently by the Jewish Cosmogony. The last one, is that which is taught by the Occult philosophy, as explained all along. An answer is found to our question in a volume just published by Mr. S. Laing -- the best lay exponent of Modern Science.* In chapter viii. of his latest work, "A Modern Zoroastrian," the author begins by twitting "all ancient religions and philosophies" for "assuming a male and female principle for their gods." At first sight, he says "the distinction of sex appears as fundamental as that of plant and animal." . . . . "The Spirit of god brooding over Chaos and producing the world," he goes on to complain, "is only a later edition, revised according to monotheistic ideas, of the far older Chaldean legend which describes the creation of Kosmos out of Chaos by the co-operations of great gods, male and female . . " Thus, in the orthodox Christian creed we are taught to repeat "begotten, not made," a phrase which is absolute nonsense, an instance of using words like counterfeit notes, which have no solid value of an idea behind them. For "begotten" is a very definite term which "implies the conjunction of two opposite sexes to produce a new individual." However we may agree with the learned author as to the inadvisability of using wrong words, and the terrible anthropomorphic and phallic element in the old Scriptures -- especially in the orthodox Christian Bible -- nevertheless, there may be two extenuating circumstances in the case. Firstly, all these "ancient philosophies" and "modern [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * Author of "Modern Science and Modern Thought." [[Vol. 2, Page]] 658 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. religions" are -- as sufficiently shown in these two volumes -- an exoteric veil thrown over the face of esoteric truth; and -- as the direct result of this -- they are allegorical, i.e. , mythological in form; but still they are immensely more philosophical in essence than any of the new scientific theories, so-called. Secondly, from the Orphic theogony down to Ezra's last remodelling of the Pentateuch, every old Scripture having in its origin borrowed its facts from the East, it has been subjected to constant alterations by friend and foe, until of the original version there remained but the name, a dead shell from which the Spirit had been gradually eliminated. This alone ought to show that no religious work now extant can be understood without the help of the Archaic wisdom, the primitive foundation on which they were all built. But to return to the direct answer expected from Science to our direct question.