Page 91 (part 3)

And in such case the Bible is right, along with other national "revelations." Hence the scientific scorn, so freely lavished by the author of "A Modern [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * Theosophists will remember that, according to Occult teaching, Cyclic pralayas so-called are but obscurations, during which periods Nature, i.e. , everything visible and invisible on a resting planet -- remains in statu quo. Nature rests and slumbers, no work of destruction going on on the globe even if no active work is done. All forms, as well as their astral types, remain as they were at the last moment of its activity. The "night" of a planet has hardly any twilight preceding it. It is caught like a huge mammoth by an avalanche, and remains slumbering and frozen till the next dawn of its new day -- a very short one indeed in comparison to the "Day of Brahma." ** This will be pooh-poohed, because it will not be understood by our modern men of science; but every Occultist and theosophist will easily realize the process. There can be no objective form on Earth (nor in the Universe either), without its astral prototype being first formed in Space. From Phidias down to the humblest workman in the ceramic art -- a sculptor has had to create first of all a model in his mind, then sketch it in one and two dimensional lines, and then only can he reproduce it in a three dimensional or objective figure. And if human mind is a living demonstration of such successive stages in the process of evolution -- how can it be otherwise when N ATURE'S M IND and creative powers are concerned? [[Vol. 2, Page]] 661 WHERE ARE THE "MISSING LINKS"? Zoroastrian" upon ancient philosophies and exoteric creeds, becomes premature and uncalled for. Nor would the sudden discovery of a "missing-link" -- like fossil mend matters at all. For neither one such solitary specimen nor the scientific conclusions thereupon, could insure its being the long-sought-for relic, i.e. , that of an undeveloped, still a once speaking MAN. Something more would be required as a final proof ( vide infra, Note ) . Besides which, even Genesis takes up man, her Adam of dust, only where the Secret Doctrine leaves her "Sons of God and Wisdom" and picks up the physical man of the T HIRD Race. Eve is not "begotten," but is extracted out of Adam on the manner of "Amoeba, A," contracting in the middle and splitting into Amoeba B -- by division. ( See p . 103, in " The Modern Zoroastrian. ") Nor has human speech developed from the various animal sounds. Haeckel's theory that "speech arose gradually from a few simple, crude animal sounds . . . ." as such "speech still remains amongst a few races of lower rank" ( Darwinian theory in " Pedigree of Man, " p. 22) is altogether unsound, as argued by Professor Max Muller, among others. He contends that no plausible explanation has yet been given as to how the "roots" of language came into existence. A human brain is necessary for human speech. And figures relating to the size of the respective brains of man and ape show how deep is the gulf which separates the two. Vogt says that the brain of the largest ape, the gorilla, measures no more than 30.51 cubic inches; while the average brains of the flat-headed Australian natives -- the lowest now in the human races -- amount to 99.35 cubic inches! Figures are awkward witnesses and cannot lie. Therefore, as truly observed by Dr. F. Pfaff, whose premises are as sound and correct as his biblical conclusions are silly: -- "The brain of the apes most like man, does not amount to quite a third of the brain of the lowest races of men : it is not half the size of the brain of a new-born child. " (" The Age and Origin of Man. ") From the foregoing it is thus very easy to perceive that in order to prove the Huxley-Haeckelian theories of the descent of man, it is not one, but a great number of " missing links " -- a true ladder of progressive evolutionary steps -- that would have to be first found and then presented by Science to thinking and reasoning humanity, before it would abandon belief in gods and the immortal Soul for the worship of Quadrumanic ancestors. Mere myths are now greeted as "axiomatic truths." Even Alfred Russel Wallace maintains with Haeckel that primitive man was a speechless ape-creature. To this Joly answers: -- "Man never was, in my opinion, this pithecanthropus alalus whose portrait Haeckel has drawn as if he had seen and known him, whose singular and completely hypothetical genealogy he has even given, from the mere mass of living protoplasm to the man endowed with speech and a civilization analo- [[Vol. 2, Page]] 662 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. gous to that of the Australians and Papuans." ("Man before Metals," p. 320 , N. Joly. Inter. Scient. Series. ) Haeckel, among other things, often comes into direct conflict with the Science of languages. In the course of his attack on Evolutionism (1873, "Mr. Darwin's Philosophy of Language"), Prof. Max Muller stigmatized the Darwinian theory as "vulnerable at the beginning and at the end." The fact is, that only the partial truth of many of the secondary "laws" of Darwinism is beyond question -- M. de Quatrefages evidently accepting "Natural Selection," the "struggle for existence" and transformation within species, as proven not once and for ever, but pro. tem. But it may not be amiss, perhaps, to condense the linguistic case against the "Ape ancestor" theory: -- Languages have their phases of growth, etc., like all else in nature. It is almost certain that the great linguistic families pass through three stages. (1) All words are roots and merely placed in juxtaposition (Radical languages). (2) One root defines the other, and becomes merely a determinative element (Agglutinative). (3) The determinative element (the determinating meaning of which has long lapsed) unites into a whole with the formative element (Inflected). The problem then is: Whence these ROOTS? Max Muller argues that the existence of these ready-made materials of speech is a proof that man cannot be the crown of a long organic series. This potentiality of forming roots is the great crux which materialists almost invariably avoid. Von Hartmann explains it as a manifestation of the "Unconscious," and admits its cogency versus mechanical Atheism. Hartmann is a fair representative of the Metaphysician and Idealist of the present age. The argument has never been met by the non-pantheistic Evolutionists.