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

One more “coincidence”:

“Now it is proved that in geologically recent times, this region of North Africa was in fact a peninsula of Spain, and that its union with Africa (proper) was effected on the North by the rupture of Gibraltar, and on the South by an upheaval to which the Sahara owes its existence. The shores of this former sea of Sahara are still marked by the shells of the same Gastropoda that live on the shores of the Mediterranean.” (Prof. Oscar Schmidt, Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism, p. 244.)

The Mandragora is the Mandrake of the Bible, of Rachel and Leah. The roots of the plant are fleshy, hairy, and forked, representing roughly the limbs, the body, and even head of a man. Its magical and mysterious properties have been proclaimed in fable and play from the most archaic ages. From Rachel and Leah, who indulged in witchcraft with them, down to Shakespeare, who speaks of “shrieking”—

“Like mandrakes torn out of the earth That living mortals, hearing them, run mad”

—the mandragora was the magic plant par excellence.

These roots are without any apparent stalk, large leaves growing out of the head of the root, like a gigantic crop of hair. They present little similitude to man when found in Spain, Italy, Asia Minor, or Syria, but on the Isle of Candia, and in Karamania near the city of Adan, they have a wonderfully human form, and are very highly prized as amulets. They are also worn by women as a charm against sterility, and for other purposes. They are especially effective in “Black Magic.”

Copernicus wrote his theories on the “Revolution of the Heavenly Bodies” in the sixteenth century, and the Zohar, even if compiled by Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, states that:

“In the Book of Hammannunah, the Old (or, the Ancient), we learn ... that the earth turns upon itself in the form of a circle; that some are on top, the others below; that ... there are some countries of the earth which are lightened, whilst others are in darkness; these have the day, when for the former it is night; and there are countries in which it is constantly day, or in which at least the night continues only some instants.” (Zohar, iii, fol. 10a, quoted in Myer's Qabbalah, p. 139.)

Athenæus shows that the first letter of Satan's name was represented in days of old by an arc and crescent; and some Roman Catholics, kind, good men, would persuade the public that it is in honour of Lucifer's crescent-like horns that Mussulmans have chosen the crescent for their national arms. Venus, ever since the establishment of Roman Catholic dogmatism, has been identified with Satan and Lucifer, or the Great Dragon, contrary to all reason and logic. As shown by symbologists and Astronomers:

“The association between the serpent and the idea of darkness had an astronomical foundation. The position which the constellation Draco at one time occupied showed that the Great Serpent was the ruler of the night. This constellation was formerly at the very centre of the heavens, and is so extensive that it was called the Great Dragon. Its body spreads over seven signs of the Zodiac; and Dupuis, who sees in the Dragon of the Apocalypse a reference to the celestial serpent, says, ‘It is not astonishing that a constellation so extended should be represented by the author of that book as a great dragon with seven heads, who drew the third part of the stars from heaven and cast them to the earth.’ ” (Staniland Wake, The Great Pyramid, p. 79; Dupuis, iii. 255.)

Only Dupuis never knew why Draco, once the pole-star—the symbol of Guide, Guru and Director—had been thus degraded by posterity. “The Gods of our fathers are our devils,” says an Asiatic proverb. When Draco ceased to be the “lode-star,” the guiding sidereal divinity, it shared the fate of all the fallen Gods. Seth and Typhon was at one time, Bunsen tells us, “a great God universally adored throughout Egypt, who conferred on the sovereigns of the 18th and 19th Dynasties the symbols of life and power. But subsequently, in the course of the 20th Dynasty, he is suddenly treated as an evil Demon, insomuch that his effigies and name are obliterated on all the monuments and inscriptions that could be reached.” The real Occult reason will be given in these pages.

“Huxley, supported by the most evident discoveries in Comparative Anatomy, could utter the momentous sentence that the anatomical differences between man and the highest apes are less than those between the latter and the lowest apes. In relation to our genealogical tree of man, the necessary conclusion follows that the human race has evolved gradually from the true apes.” (The Pedigree of Man, by Ernst Hæckel, translated by Ed. B. Aveling, p. 49.)

What may be the scientific and logical objections to the opposite conclusion—we would ask? The anatomical resemblances between Man and the Anthropoids—grossly exaggerated as they are by Darwinists, as M. de Quatrefages shows—are simply enough accounted for when the origin of the latter is taken into consideration.

“Nowhere, in the older deposits, is an ape to be found that approximates more closely to man, or a man that approximates more closely to an ape.”

“The same gulf which is found to-day between man and ape, goes back with undiminished breadth and depth to the Tertiary period. This fact alone is enough to make its untenability clear.” (Dr. F. Pfaff, Prof. of Natural Science in the University of Erlangen.)

“The father of the sacred fire,” writes Prof. Jolly, “bore the name of Tvashtri ... His mother was Mâyâ. He himself was styled Akta (anointed χριστὸς) after the priest had poured upon his head the spirituous (?) Soma, and on his body butter purified by sacrifice.” (Man before Metals, p. 190.) The source of his information is not given by the French Darwinist. But the lines are quoted to show that light begins to dawn even upon the Materialists. Adalbert Kühn, in his Die Herabkunft des Feuers, identifies the two signs [Symbol: swastika] and [Symbol: swastika with dots around the center] with Arani, and designates them under this name. He adds: “This process of kindling fire naturally led men to the idea of sexual reproduction,” etc. Why could not a more dignified idea, and one more Occult, have led man to invent this symbol, in so far as it is connected, in one of its aspects, with human reproduction? But its chief symbolism refers to Cosmogony.

“Agni, in the condition of Akta, or anointed, is suggestive of Christ,” remarks Prof. Jolly. “Mâyâ, Mary, His mother; Tvashtri, St. Joseph, the carpenter of the Bible.” In the Rig Veda, Vishvakarman is the highest and oldest of the Gods and their “Father.” He is the “carpenter or builder,” because God is called even by the Monotheists, the “Architect of the Universe.” Still, the original idea is purely metaphysical, and had no connection with the later Phallicism.

A hypothesis evolved in 1881 by Mr. W. Mattieu Williams seems to have impressed Astronomers but little. Says the author of “The Fuel of the Sun,” in Knowledge, Dec. 23, 1881:

“Applying now the researches of Dr. Andrews to the conditions of solar existence ... I conclude that the sun has no nucleus, either solid, liquid, or gaseous, but is composed of dissociated matter in the critical state, surrounded, first, by a flaming envelope, due to the recombination of the dissociated matter, and outside of this, by another envelope of vapours due to this combination.”

This is a novel theory to be added to other hypotheses, all scientific and orthodox. The meaning of the “critical state” is explained by Mr. W. Mattieu Williams in the same journal (Dec. 9, 1881), in an article on “Solids, liquids, and Gases.” Speaking of an experiment by Dr. Andrews on carbonic acid, the Scientist says that:

“When 88° is reached, the boundary between liquid and gas vanishes; liquid and gas have blended into one mysterious intermediate fluid; an indefinite fluctuating something is there filling the whole of the tube—an etherealized liquid or a visible gas. Hold a red-hot poker between your eye and the light; you will see an upflowing wave of movement of what appears like liquid air. The appearance of the hybrid fluid in the tube resembles this, but is sensibly denser, and evidently stands between the liquid and gaseous states of matter, as pitch or treacle stands between solid and liquid.”

The temperature at which this occurs has been named by Dr. Andrews the “critical temperature”; here the gaseous and the liquid states are “continuous,” and it is probable that all other substances capable of existing in both states have their own particular critical temperatures.

Speculating further upon this “critical” state, Mr. W. Mattieu Williams emits some quite Occult theories about Jupiter and other Planets. He says:

“Our notions of solids, liquids, and gases are derived from our experiences of the state of matter here upon this Earth. Could we be removed to another planet, they would be curiously changed. On Mercury water would rank as one of the condensible gases; on Mars, as a fusible solid; but what on Jupiter?

“Recent observations justify us in regarding this as a miniature sun, with an external envelope of cloudy matter, apparently of partially-condensed water, but red-hot, or probably still hotter within. His vaporous atmosphere is evidently of enormous depth, and the force of gravitation being on his visible outer surface two-and-a-half times greater than that on our earth's surface, the atmospheric pressure, in descending below this visible surface, must soon reach that at which the vapour of water would be brought to its critical condition. Therefore we may infer that the oceans of Jupiter are neither of frozen, liquid, nor gaseous water, but are oceans, or atmospheres of critical water. If any fish or birds swim or fly therein, they must be very critically organized.”

As the whole mass of Jupiter is 300 times greater than that of the Earth, and its compressing energy towards the centre proportional to this, its materials, if similar to those of the Earth, and no hotter, would be considerably more dense, and the whole planet would have a higher specific gravity; but we know by the movement of its satellites that, instead of this, its specific gravity is less than a fourth of that of the Earth. This justifies the conclusion that it is intensely hot; for even hydrogen, if cold, would become denser than Jupiter under such pressure.

“As all elementary substances may exist as solids, liquids, or gases, or, critically, according to the conditions of temperature and pressure, I am justified in hypothetically concluding that Jupiter is neither a solid, a liquid, nor a gaseous planet, but a critical planet, or an orb composed internally of associated elements in the critical state, and surrounded by a dense atmosphere of their vapours and those of some of their compounds such as water. The same reasoning applies to Saturn and other large and rarefied planets.”

It is gratifying to see how “scientific imagination” approaches every year more closely to the borderland of our Occult Teachings.

This is corroborated by a learned Brahman. In his most excellent Lectures on the Bhagavad Gîtâ (Theosophist, April, 1887, p. 444) the lecturer says:

“There is a peculiarity to which I must call your attention. He [Krishna] speaks here of four Manus. Why does he speak of four? We are now in the seventh Manvantara—that of Vaivasvata. If he is speaking of the past Manus, he ought to speak of six, but he only mentions four. In some commentaries an attempt has been made to interpret this in a peculiar manner.

“The word ‘Chatvârah’ is separated from the word ‘Manavah,’ and is made to refer to Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatkumâra, and Sanatsujâta, who were also included among the mind-born sons of Prajâpati.

“But this interpretation will lead to a most absurd conclusion, and make the sentence contradict itself. The persons alluded to in the text have a qualifying clause in the sentence. It is well known that Sanaka and the other three refused to create, though the other sons had consented to do so: therefore, in speaking of those persons from whom humanity has sprung into existence, it would be absurd to include these four also in the list. The passage must be interpreted without splitting the compound into two nouns. The number of Manus will then be four, and the statement would then contradict the Paurânic account, though it would be in harmony with the Occult theory. You will recollect that it is stated [in Occultism] that we are now in the Fifth Root-Race. Each Root-Race is considered as the Santati of a particular Manu. Now, the Fourth Race has passed, or, in other words, there have been four past Manus.”

One has to remember that, in the Hindû Philosophy, every differentiated unit is such only through the Cycles of Mâyâ, being one in its essence with the Supreme or One Spirit. Hence arises the seeming confusion and contradiction in the various Purânas, and at times in the same Purâna, about the same individual. Vishnu—as the many-formed Brahmâ, and as Brahma (neuter)—is one, and yet he is said to be all the twenty-eight Vyâsas.

“In every Dvâpara (or third) age, Vishnu, in the person of Vyâsa, divides the Veda, which is (properly, but) one, into many portions.... Twenty-eight times have the Vedas been arranged by the great Rishis in the Vaivasvata Manvantara, in the Dvâpara age; and, consequently, eight and twenty Vyâsas have passed away.” (Vishnu Purâna, iii. 3; Wilson's Trans., iii. 33, 34.) “[They who were all] in the form of Veda-Vyâsa; who were the Vyâsas of their respective eras.” (Ibid., loc. cit., p. 33.) “This world is Brahmâ, in Brahmâ, from Brahmâ ... nothing further to be known.” Then, again, in the Harivamsha: “There were (in the first Manvantara) seven celebrated sons of Vasishtha, who (in the third Manvantara) were sons of Brahmâ (i.e., Rishis), the illustrious progeny of Ûrjâ.” (Ibid., iii. 6, note.) This is plain: the Humanity of the First Manvantara is that of the seventh and of all the intermediate ones. The Mankind of the First Root-Race is the mankind of the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc. To the last it forms a cyclic and constant reïncarnation of the Monads belonging to the Dhyân Chohans of our Planetary Chain.

To speak of life as having arisen, and of the human race as having originated, in this absurdly unscientific way, in the face of the modern Pedigrees of Man, is to court instantaneous annihilation. The Esoteric Doctrine risks the danger, nevertheless, and even goes so far as to ask the impartial reader to compare the above hypothesis (if it is one) with Hæckel's theory—now fast becoming an axiom with Science—which we quote verbatim as follows:

“How did life, the living world of organisms, arise? And, secondly, the special question: How did the human race originate? The first of these two enquiries, that as to the first appearance of living beings, can only be decided empirically [!!] by proof of the so-called Archebiosis, or equivocal generation, or the spontaneous production of organisms of the simplest conceivable kind. Such are the Monera (Protogenes, Protamœba, Protomyxa, Vampyrella), exceedingly simple microscopic masses of protoplasm without structure or organization, which take in nutriment and reproduce themselves by division. Such a Moneron as that primordial organism discovered by the renowned English zoologist Huxley and named Bathybius Hæckelii, appears as a continuous thick protoplasmic covering at the greatest depths of the ocean, between 3,000 and 30,000 feet. It is true that the first appearance of such Monera has not up to the present moment been actually observed; but there is nothing intrinsically improbable in such an Evolution.” (The Pedigree of Man, Aveling's translation, p. 33.)

The Bathybius protoplasm having recently turned out to be no organic substance at all, there remains little to be said. Nor, after reading this, does one need to consume further time in refuting the further assertion that: “In that case man also has, beyond a doubt [to the minds of Hæckel and his like], arisen from the lower Mammalia, apes, the earlier simian creatures, the still earlier Marsupialia, Amphibia, Pisces, by progressive transformations” (p. 36)—all produced by “a series of natural forces working blindly, ... without aim, without design.”

The above-quoted passage bears its criticism on its own face. Science is made to teach that, which, up to the present time, “has never been actually observed.” She is made to deny the phenomenon of an intelligent nature and a vital force independent of form and matter, and to find it more scientific to teach the miraculous performance of “natural forces working blindly without aim or design.” If so, then we are led to think that the physico-mechanical forces of the brains of certain eminent Scientists are leading them on as blindly to sacrifice logic and common sense on the altar of mutual admiration. Why should the protoplasmic Moneron producing the first living creature through self-division be held as a very scientific hypothesis, and an ethereal pre-human race generating the primeval men in the same fashion be tabooed as unscientific superstition? Or has Materialism obtained a sole monopoly in Science?

“A very strong argument in favour of variability is supplied by the science of embryology. Is not a man in the uterus ... a simple cell, a vegetable with three or four leaflets, a tadpole with branchiæ, a mammal with a tail, lastly a primate [?] and a biped? It is scarcely possible not to recognize in the embryonic evolution a rapid sketch, a faithful summary, of the entire organic series.” (Lefèvre, Philosophy, p. 484.)

The summary alluded to is, however, only that of the store of types hoarded up in man, the microcosm. This simple explanation meets all such objections, as the presence of the rudimentary tail in the fœtus—a fact triumphantly paraded by Hæckel and Darwin as conclusively in favour of the Ape-Ancestor Theory. It may also be pointed out that the presence of a vegetable with leaflets in the embryonic stages is not explained on ordinary evolutionist principles. Darwinists have not traced man through the vegetable, but Occultists have. Why then this feature in the embryo, and how do the former explain it?