The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2 of 4 The Synthesis of...

And now another man of Science, as well known (Croll) calculating that the Tertiary age began either fifteen or two-and-a-half million years ago—the former being a more correct calculation, according to Esoteric Doctrine, than the latter—there seems in this case, at least, no very great disagreement. Exact Science, refusing to see in man a “special creation” (to a certain degree the Secret Sciences do the same), is at liberty to ignore the first three, or rather two-and-a-half Races—the spiritual, the semi-astral, and the semi-human—of our teachings. But it can hardly do the same in the case of the Third, at its closing period, the Fourth, and the Fifth Races, since it already divides mankind into Palæolithic and Neolithic man.1626 The Geologists of France place man in the Mid-Miocene age (Gabriel de Mortillet), and some even in the Secondary period, as de Quatrefages suggests; [pg 725] while the English savants do not generally accept such antiquity for their species. But they may know better some day. For, as says Sir Charles Lyell:

If we consider the absence or extreme scarcity of human bones and works of art in all strata, whether marine or fresh-water, even in those formed in the immediate proximity of land inhabited by millions of human beings, we shall be prepared for the general dearth of human memorials in glacial formations, whether recent, pleistocene, or of more ancient date. If there were a few wanderers over lands covered with glaciers, or over seas infested with icebergs, and if a few of them left their bones or weapons in moraines or in marine drifts, the chances, after the lapse of thousands of years, of a geologist meeting with one of them must be infinitesimally small.1627

The men of Science avoid pinning themselves down to any definite statement concerning the age of man, as indeed they are hardly able to make any, and thus leave enormous latitude to bolder speculations. Nevertheless, while the majority of the Anthropologists carry back the existence of man only into the period of the post-glacial drift, or what is called the Quaternary period, those of them who, as Evolutionists, trace man to a common origin with the monkey, do not show great consistency in their speculations. The Darwinian hypothesis demands, in reality, a far greater antiquity for man, than is even dimly suspected by superficial thinkers. This is proven by the greatest authorities on the question—Mr. Huxley, for instance. Those, therefore, who accept the Darwinian evolution, ipso facto hold very tenaciously to an antiquity of man so very great, indeed, that it falls not so far short of the Occultist's estimate.1628 The modest thousands of years of the Encyclopædia Britannica and the 100,000 years, to which Anthropology in general limits the age of Humanity, seem quite microscopical when compared with the figures implied in Mr. Huxley's bold speculations. The former, indeed, makes of the original race of men ape-like cave-dwellers. The great English Biologist, in his desire to prove man's pithecoid origin, insists that the transformation of the primordial ape [pg 726] into a human being must have occurred millions of years back.

Clearly indicate that the first traces of the primordial stock whence man has proceeded, need no longer be sought by those who entertain any form of the doctrine of progressive development in the newest Tertiaries; but that they may be looked for in an epoch more distant from the age of the elephas primigenius than that is from us.1630

An untold antiquity for man is thus, then, the scientific sine quâ non in the question of Darwinian Evolution, since the oldest Palæolithic man shows as yet no appreciable differentiation from his modern descendant. It is only of late that Modern Science has with every year begun to widen the abyss that now separates her from ancient Science, as that of Pliny and Hippocrates; none of the old writers would have derided the Archaic Teachings with respect to the evolution of the human races and animal species, as the present day Scientist—Geologist or Anthropologist—is sure to do.

The pendulum of thought oscillates between extremes. Having now finally emancipated herself from the shackles of Theology, Science has embraced the opposite fallacy; and in the attempt to interpret Nature on purely materialistic lines, she has built up that most extravagant theory of the ages—the derivation of man from a ferocious and brutal ape. So rooted has this doctrine now become, in one form and another, that the most Herculean efforts will be needed to bring about its final rejection. The Darwinian Anthropology is the incubus of the Ethnologist, [pg 728] a sturdy child of modern Materialism, which has grown up and acquired increasing vigour, as the ineptitude of the theological legend of Man's “creation” became more and more apparent. It has thriven on account of the strange delusion that—as a Scientist of repute puts it:

The anatomical resemblance between man and the higher ape, so frequently cited by Darwinists as pointing to some former ancestor common to both, presents an interesting problem, the proper solution of which is to be sought for in the Esoteric explanation of the genesis of the pithecoid stocks. We have given it as far as it was useful, by stating that the bestiality of the primeval mindless races resulted in the production of huge man-like monsters—the offspring of human and animal parents. As time rolled on, and the still semi-astral forms consolidated into the physical, the descendants of these creatures were modified by external conditions, until the breed, dwindling in size, culminated in the lower apes of the Miocene period. With these the later Atlanteans renewed the sin of the “Mindless”—this time with full responsibility. The resultants of their crime were the apes now known as anthropoid.

It may be useful to compare this very simple theory—and we are willing to offer it merely as a hypothesis to the unbelievers—with the Darwinian scheme, so full of insurmountable obstacles, that no sooner is one of them overcome by a more or less ingenious hypothesis, than ten worse difficulties are forthwith discovered behind the one disposed of.