Page 91 (part 2)

It is given by the same author, when, following his train of thought on the unscientific euhemerization of the powers of Nature in ancient creeds, he pronounces a condemnatory verdict upon them in the following terms: -- "Science, however, makes sad havoc with this impression of sexual generation being the original and only mode of reproduction,* and the microscope and dissecting knife of the naturalist introduce us to new and altogether unsuspected (?) worlds of life. . . ." So little " unsuspected, " indeed, that the original a -sexual "modes of reproduction" must have been known -- to the ancient Hindus, at any rate -- Mr. Laing's assertion to the contrary, notwithstanding. In view of the statement in the Vishnu Purana, quoted by us elsewhere, that Daksha "established sexual intercourse as the means of multiplication," only after a series of other "modes," which are all enumerated therein, ( Vol. II., p. 12 , Wilson ' s Transl. ) , it becomes difficult to deny the fact. This assertion, moreover, is found, note well, in an EXOTERIC work. Then, Mr. S. Laing goes on to tell us that: -- . . . . "By far the larger proportion of living forms, in number . . . . have come into existence, without the aid of sexual propagation." He then instances Haeckel's monera . . . . " multiplying by self-division. " The next stage the author shows in the nucleated cell, "which does exactly the same thing." The following stage is that in "which the organism does not divide into two equal parts, but a small portion of it swells out . . . . and finally parts company and starts on separate existence, which grows to the size of the parent by its inherent faculty of manufacturing fresh protoplasm from surrounding inorganic materials."** [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * Vide Part I. of this volume, page 183, Stanza VIII . ** In this, as shown in Part I., Modern Science was again anticipated, far beyond its own speculations in this direction, by Archaic Science. [[Vol. 2, Page]] 659 VARIOUS MODES OF REPRODUCTION. This is followed by a many-celled organism which is formed by " germ-buds reduced to spores, or single cells, which are emitted from the parent ". . . . when "we are at the threshold of that system of sexual propagation, which has (now) become the rule in all the higher families of animals" . . . . It is when an "organism, having advantages in the struggle for life, established itself permanently" . . . . that special organs developed to meet the altered condition . . . . . when a distinction "would be firmly established of a female organ or ovary containing the egg or primitive cell from which the new being was to be developed." . . . . "This is confirmed by a study of embryology, which shows that in the HUMAN and higher animal species the distinction of sex is not developed until a considerable progress has been made in the growth of the embryo . . . . " In the great majority of plants, and in some lower families of animals . . . the male and female organs are developed within the same being . . . . . a hermaphrodite. Moreover, in the "virginal reproduction -- germ-cells apparently similar in all respects to egg-cells, develop themselves into new individuals without any fructifying element, " etc., etc. (pp. 103-107). Of all which we are as perfectly well aware as of this -- that the above was never applied by the very learned English popularizer of Huxleyo-Haeckelian theories to the genus homo. He limits this to specks of protoplasm, plants, bees, snails, and so on. But if he would be true to the theory of descent, he must be as true to ontogenesis, in which the fundamental biogenetic law, we are told, runs as follows: "the development of the embryo (ontogeny) is a condensed and abbreviated repetition of the evolution of the race (phylogeny). This repetition is the more complete, the more the true original order of evolution (palingenesis) has been retained by continual heredity. On the other hand, this repetition is the less complete, the more by varying adaptations the later spurious development (caenogenesis) has obtained." ( Anthrop. 3rd edition, p. 11.) This shows to us that every living creature and thing on earth, including man, evolved from one common primal form. Physical man must have passed through the same stages of the evolutionary process in the various modes of procreation as other animals have: he must have divided himself; then, hermaphrodite, have given birth parthenogenetically (on the immaculate principle) to his young ones; the next stage would be the oviparous -- at first "without any fructifying element," then "with the help of the fertilitary spore"; and only after the final and definite evolution of both sexes, would he become a distinct "male and female," when reproduction through sexual union would grow into universal law. So far, all this is scientifically proven. There remains but one thing to be ascertained: the plain and comprehensively described [[Vol. 2, Page]] 660 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. processes of such ante -sexual reproduction. This is done in the Occult books, a slight outline of which was attempted by the writer in Part I. of this Volume. Either this, or -- man is a distinct being. Occult philosophy may call him that, because of his distinctly dual nature. Science cannot do so, once that it rejects every interference save mechanical laws, and admits of no principle outside matter. The former -- the archaic Science --allows the human physical frame to have passed through every form, from the lowest to the very highest, its present one, or from the simple to the complex -- to use the accepted terms. But it claims that in this cycle (the fourth), the frame having already existed among the types and models of nature from the preceding Rounds -- that it was quite ready for man from the beginning of this Round.* The Monad had but to step into the astral body of the progenitors, in order that the work of physical consolidation should begin around the shadowy prototype.** What would Science say to this? It would answer, of course, that as man appeared on earth as the latest of the mammalians, he had no need, no more than those mammals, to pass through the primitive stages of procreation as above described. His mode of procreation was already established on Earth when he appeared. In this case, we may reply: since to this day not the remotest sign of a link between man and the animal has yet been found, then (if the Occultist doctrine is to be repudiated) he must have sprung miraculously in nature, like a fully armed Minerva from Jupiter's brain.