chapter xxii

. of “The Lesser Holy Assembly,” concerning the remaining members of Microprosopus.) For, this “Tree of Life” is also the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,” whose chief mystery is that of human procreation. It is a mistake to regard the _Kabalah_ as _explaining_ the mysteries of Kosmos or Nature; it explains and unveils only a few allegories in the _Bible_, and _is more esoteric_ than is the latter.

1513 Simplified in the English _Bible_ to: “Is the Lord [!!] among us, or not?”

1514 Verse 83; _op. cit._, p. 121.

1515 Translators often render the word “Companion” (Angel, also Adept) by “Rabbi,” just as the Rishis are called Gurus. The _Zohar_ is, if possible, more occult than the _Book of Moses_; to read the “Book of Concealed Mystery” one requires the keys furnished by the genuine Chaldæan _Book of Numbers_, which is not extant.

1516 Verses 1152, 1158, 1159; _op. cit._, p. 254.

1517 _I Peter_, ii. 2‐5.

1518 “The Greater Holy Assembly,” vv. 1160, 1161; _op. cit._, p. 255.

1519 See pp. 445, 446, _supra_.

1520 _Op. cit._, i. 297, 2nd ed.

1521 It is. But Âgneyâstra are fiery “missile weapons,” not “edged” weapons, as there is some difference between Shastra and Astra in Sanskrit.

1522 Yet there are some, who may know something of these, even outside the author’s lines, wide as they undeniably are.

1523 This connecting link, like others, was pointed out by the present writer nine years before the appearance of the work from which the above is quoted, namely in _Isis Unveiled_, a work full of such guiding links between ancient, mediæval, and modern thought, but, unfortunately, too loosely edited.

1524 Ay; but how can the learned writer prove that these “beginnings” were precisely in Egypt, and nowhere else; and only 50,000 years ago?

1525 Precisely; and this is just what the Theosophists do. They have never claimed “original inspiration,” not even as mediums claim it, but have always pointed, and do now point, to the “primary signification” of the symbols, which they trace to other countries, older even than Egypt; significations, moreover, which emanate from a Hierarchy (or Hierarchies, if preferred) of _living_ Wise Men—mortals notwithstanding that Wisdom—who reject every approach to _supernaturalism_.

1526 But where is the proof that the Ancients did not mean precisely that which the Theosophists claim? Records exist for what they say, just as other records exist for what Mr. Gerald Massey says. His interpretations are very correct, but are also very one‐sided. Surely Nature has more than one _physical aspect_; for Astronomy, Astrology, and so on, are all on the physical, not the spiritual, plane.

1527 _The Natural Genesis_, i. 318. It is to be feared that Mr. Massey has not succeeded. We have our followers as he has his followers, and Materialistic Science steps in and takes little account of both his and our speculations!

1528 The fact that this learned Egyptologist does not recognize in the doctrine of the “Seven Souls,” as he terms our “principles,” or “metaphysical ‘_concepts_,’ ” anything but “the primitive biology or physiology of the soul,” does not invalidate our argument. The lecturer touches on only two keys, those that unlock the astronomical and the physiological mysteries of Esotericism, and leaves out the other five. Otherwise he would have promptly understood that what he calls the physiological divisions of the living Soul of man, are regarded by Theosophists as also psychological and spiritual.

1529 _Op. cit._, p. 2.

1530 _Ibid._, _loc. cit._

1531 _Ibid._, _loc. cit._

1532 _Ibid._, _loc. cit._

1533 _Ibid._, p. 4.

1534 This is a great mistake made in the Esoteric enumeration. Manas is the fifth, not the fourth; and Manas corresponds precisely with Seb, the Egyptian fifth principle, for that portion of Manas which follows the two higher principles, is the ancestral soul, indeed, the bright, immortal thread of the higher Ego, to which clings the spiritual aroma of all the lives or births.

1535 _Ibid._, p. 2.

1536 _Ibid._, pp. 2, 3.

1537 _Signatura Rerum_, xiv. pars. 10, 14, 15; _The Natural Genesis_, i. 317.

1538 _Aurora_, xxiv. 27.

1539 This is indeed news! It makes us fear that the lecturer had never read _Esoteric Buddhism_ before criticizing it. There are too many such misconceptions in his notices of it.

1540 “The Seven Souls of Man,” pp. 26, 27.

1541 _Ibid._, p. 26.

1542 _The Theosophist_, 1887 (Madras), pp. 705, 706.

1543 According to _Shvetâshvatara‐Upanishad_ (357) the Siddhas are those who are possessed from birth of “superhuman” powers, as also of “knowledge and indifference to the world.” According to the Occult teachings, however, the Siddhas are Nirmânakâyas or the “spirits”—in the sense of an individual, or _conscious_ spirit—of great Sages from spheres on a higher plane than our own, who voluntarily incarnate in mortal bodies in order to help the human race in its upward progress. Hence their innate knowledge, wisdom and powers.

1544 “The Sacred Books of the East,” viii. 284, _et seqq._

1545 I propose to follow here the text and not the editor’s commentaries, who accepts Arjuna Mishra and Nilakantha’s _dead‐letter_ explanations. Our Orientalists never trouble to think that if a native commentator is a non‐initiate, he could not explain correctly, and if an Initiate, would not.

1546 See _Chhândogya_, p. 219, and Shankara’s commentary thereupon.

1547 The editor explains here, saying, “I presume devoted to the Brahman.” We venture to assert that the “Fire” or Self is the real Higher SELF “connected with,” that is to say _one_ with Brahma, the One Deity. The “Self” separates itself no longer from the Universal Spirit.

1548 The “Supreme Self,” says Krishna, in the _Bhagavad Gitâ_, pp. 102, _et seqq._

1549 As Mahat, or Universal Intelligence, is first born, or manifests, as Vishnu, and then, when it falls into Matter and develops self‐ consciousness, becomes egoism, selfishness, so Manas is of a dual nature. It is respectively under the Sun and Moon, for as Shankarâchârya says: “The moon is the mind, and the sun the understanding.” The Sun and Moon are the deities of our planetary Macrocosmos, and therefore Shankara adds that: “The mind and the understanding are the respective deities of the [human] organs.” (See _Brihadâranyaka_, pp. 521, _et seqq._) This is perhaps why Arjuna Mishra says that the Moon and the Fire (the Self, the Sun) constitute the universe.

1550 “The body in the soul,” as Arjuna Mishra is credited with saying, or rather “the soul in the spirit”, and on a still higher plane of development, the Self or Âtman in the Universal Self.

1551 _Op. cit._, p. 179.

1552 _Prov._, ix. 1.

1553 De Quatrefages, _The Human Species_, p. 111. The respective developments of the human and simian brains are referred to. “In the ape the temporo‐sphenoidal convolutions, which form the middle lobe, make their appearance and are completed before the anterior convolutions which form the frontal lobe. In man, on the contrary, the frontal convolutions are the first to appear, and those of the middle lobe are formed later.” (_Ibid._)

1554 _Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism_, p. 290.

1555 Series II, Vol. VI, p. 769 (Ed. 1886). To this an editorial remark adds that an “F.J.B.,” in the _Athenæum_ (No. 3069, Aug. 21, 1886, pp. 242‐3), points out that Naturalists have long recognized that there are “morphological” and “physiological” species. The former have their origin in men’s minds, the latter in a series of changes sufficient to affect the internal as well as the external organs of a group of allied individuals. The “physiological selection” of morphological species is a confusion of ideas; that of physiological species a redundancy of terms.

1556 _Op. cit._, p. 79.

1557 _Ibid._, p. 48.

1558 Nägeli’s “principle of perfectibility”; von de Baer’s “striving towards the purpose”; Braun’s “divine breath as the inward impulse in the evolutionary history of Nature”; Professor Owen’s “tendency to perfectibility,” etc., are all expressive of the veiled manifestations of the universal guiding Fohat, rich with the Divine and Dhyân‐Chohanic thought.

1559 Hæckel on “Cell‐Souls and Soul‐Cells,” _Pedigree of Man_, Aveling’s Trans., see pp. 136, 150.

1560 See _infra_, M. de Quatrefages’ _exposé_ of Hæckel, in Section II, “The Ancestors Mankind is offered by Science.”

1561 Strictly speaking, du Bois‐Reymond is an Agnostic, and not a Materialist. He has protested most vehemently against the materialistic doctrine, which affirms mental phenomena to be merely the product of molecular motion. The most accurate _physiological_ knowledge of the structure of the brain leaves us “nothing but matter in motion,” he asserts; “_we must go further_, and admit the utterly incomprehensible nature of the psychical principle, which it is _impossible to regard_ as a mere outcome of material causes.”

1562 See Hæckel’s “Present Position of Evolution,” _op. cit._, pp. 23, 24, 296, 297, notes.

1563 _Op. cit._, pp. 34, 35, 36.

1564 _Measure for Measure_, Act ii, Scene 2.

1565 _Knowledge_, January, 1882.

1566 T. Huxley, _Man’s Place in Nature_, p. 57.

1567 _Op. cit._, “The Proofs of Evolution,” p. 273.

1568 Author of _Modern Science and Modern Thought_.

1569 _Op. cit._, pp. 102, 103.

1570 _Op. cit._, ii. 12, Wilson’s Transl.

1571 _Op. cit._, p. 104. In this, as has been shown in Part I, Modern Science has again been anticipated, far beyond its own speculations, by Archaic Science.

1572 _Ibid._, pp. 104‐106.

1573 _Anthrop._, 3rd edition, p. 11.

1574 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 upon the Globe even if no active work be 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 Brahmâ.

1575 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 dimensional lines, and then only can he reproduce it in a three dimensional or objective figure. And if the human mind is a living demonstration of such successive stages in the process of Evolution, how can it be otherwise when Nature’s Mind and creative powers are concerned?

1576 See _A Modern Zoroastrian_, p. 103.

1577 “Darwinian Theory” in _Pedigree of Man_, p. 22.

1578 _The Age and Origin of Man._

1579 _Man before Metals_, p. 320, “International Scientific Series.”

1580 _Mr. Darwin’s Philosophy of Language_, 1873.

1581 _Cf._ his _Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism_, p. 304.

1582 _A Modern Zoroastrian_, p. 136.

1583 It thus appears that in its anxiety to prove our noble descent from the catarrhine “baboon,” Hæckel’s school has pushed back the times of pre‐historic man millions of years. (See _Pedigree of Man_, p. 273.) Occultists, render thanks to Science for such corroboration of our claims!

1584 This seems a poor compliment to pay Geology, which is not a speculative but as exact a Science as Astronomy—save, perhaps, its too risky chronological speculations. It is mainly a “descriptive” as opposed to an “abstract” Science.

1585 Such newly‐coined words as “perigenesis of plastids,” “plastidule souls” (!), and others less comely, invented by Hæckel, may be very learned and correct in so far as they may express very graphically the ideas in his own vivid fancy. As _facts_, however, they remain for his less imaginative colleagues painfully cænogenetic—to use his own terminology; _i.e._, for true Science they are spurious speculations, so long as they are derived from “empirical sources.” Therefore, when he seeks to prove that “the origin of man from other mammals, and most directly from the catarrhine apes, is a deductive law, that follows necessarily from the inductive law of the theory of descent” (_Anthropogeny_, p. 392, quoted in _Pedigree of Man_, p. 295.)—his no less learned foes (du Bois‐Reymond—for one) have a right to see in this sentence a mere jugglery of words; a “_testimonium paupertatis_ of Natural Science”—as he himself complains, speaking, in return, of du Bois‐Reymond’s “astonishing ignorance.” (See _Pedigree of Man_, notes on pp. 295, 296.)

1586 _Pedigree of Man_, p. 273.

1587 _Anthropogeny_, p. 392. Quoted in _Pedigree of Man_, p. 295.

1588 The _mental_ barrier between man and ape, characterized by Huxley as an “enormous gap, a distance practically immeasurable” (! !) is, indeed, in itself conclusive. Certainly it constitutes a standing puzzle to the Materialist, who relies on the frail reed of “natural selection.” The physiological differences between Man and the Apes are in reality—despite a curious community of certain features—equally striking. Says Dr. Schweinfurth, one of the most cautious and experienced of Naturalists:

“In modern times there are no animals in creation that have attracted a larger amount of attention from the scientific student of nature than these great quadrumana [the anthropoids], which are stamped with such a singular resemblance to the human form as to have justified the epithet of anthropomorphic.... But all investigation at present only leads human intelligence to a confession of its insufficiency; and nowhere is caution more to be advocated, nowhere is premature judgment more to be deprecated than in the attempt to bridge over the mysterious chasm which separates man and beast.” (_Heart of Africa_, i., 520. Ed., 1873.)

1589 _The Descent of Man_, p. 160. Ed. 1888. A ridiculous instance of evolutionist contradictions is afforded by Schmidt (_Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism_, p. 292). He says: “Man’s kinship with the apes is ... not impugned by the bestial strength of the teeth of a male orang or gorilla.” Mr. Darwin, on the contrary, endows this fabulous being with teeth used as weapons!

1590 According even to a fellow‐thinker, Professor Schmidt, Darwin has evolved “a certainly not flattering, and perhaps in many points not correct, portrait of our presumptive ancestors in the phase of dawning humanity.” (_Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism_, p. 284.)

1591 _The Human Species_, pp. 106‐108.

1592 _Op. cit._, p. 77.

1593 Pp. 109, 110.

1594 _Op. cit._, p. 110.

1595 Of course the Esoteric system of Fourth Round Evolution is much more complex than the paragraph and quotations referred to categorically assert. It is practically a _reversal_—both in embryological inference and succession in time of species—of the current Western conception.

1596 According to Hæckel, there are also “cell‐souls” and “atom‐cells”; an “inorganic molecular soul” without, and a “plastidular soul” with, or possessing, memory. What are our Esoteric teachings to this? The _divine and human_ soul of the seven principles in man must, of course, pale and give way before such a stupendous revelation!

1597 _The Pedigree of Man_, p. 296.

1598 A valuable confession, this. Only it makes the attempt to trace the _descent_ of consciousness in man, as well as of his physical body, from Bathybius Hæckelii, still more humorous and _empirical_ in the sense of Webster’s second definition.

1599 _Ibid._

1600 Those who take the opposite view and look upon the existence of the human Soul—“as a supernatural, a spiritual phenomenon, conditioned by forces altogether different from ordinary physical forces,” mock, he thinks, “in consequence, all explanation that is simply scientific.” They have no right it seems, to assert that “psychology is, in part, or in whole, a spiritual science, not a physical one.” The new discovery by Hæckel—one taught for thousands of years in all the Eastern religions, however—that animals have souls, will, and sensation, hence, soul‐functions, leads him to make of Psychology the science of the Zoologists. The archaic teaching that the “soul” (the animal and human souls, or Kâma and Manas) “has its developmental history”—is claimed by Hæckel as his own discovery and innovation on an “untrodden [?] path”! He, Hæckel, will work out the comparative evolution of the soul in man and in other animals. The comparative morphology of the soul‐organs, and the comparative physiology of the soul‐functions, both founded on Evolution, thus become the psychological [really materialistic] problem of the scientific man. (“Cell‐souls and Soul‐cells,” pp. 135, 136, 137, _Pedigree of Man_.)

1601 _The Pedigree of Man_, note 20, p. 296.

1602 P. 119.

1603 See “Transmigration of Life‐Atoms,” in _Five Years of Theosophy_, pp. 533‐539. The collective aggregation of these atoms forms thus the Anima Mundi of our Solar System, the Soul of our little Universe, each atom of which is of course a Soul, a Monad, a little universe endowed with consciousness, hence with memory. (Vol. I,

## Part III, “Gods, Monads, and Atoms.”)

1604 _Op. cit._, p. 119.

1605 In “The Transmigration of Life‐Atoms” (_Five Years of Theosophy_, p. 535), we say of the Jîva, or Life‐Principle, in order to better explain a position which is but too often misunderstood: “It is omnipresent ... though [on this plane of manifestation often] ... in a dormant state [as in stone].... The definition which states that when this indestructible force is ‘disconnected with one set of atoms [_molecules_ ought to have been said] it becomes immediately attracted by others,’ does not imply that it abandons entirely the first set [because the atoms themselves would then disappear], but only that it transfers its _vis viva_, or living power—the energy of motion, to another set. But because it manifests itself in the next set as what is called kinetic energy, it does not follow that the first set is deprived of it altogether; for it is still in it, as potential energy or life latent.” Now what can Hæckel mean by his “not identical atoms, but their peculiar motion and mode of aggregation,” if it is not the same kinetic energy we have been explaining? Before evolving such theories, he must have read Paracelsus and studied _Five Years of Theosophy_ without properly digesting the teachings.

1606 _Op. cit._, note 21, p. 296.

1607 _Ibid._, note 19.

1608 _Ibid._, note 23.

1609 _Man’s Place in Nature_, p. 159.

1610 _Op cit._, p. 157.

1611 _Ibid._, p. 161.

1612 This the way _primitive man_ must have acted? We are not aware of men, not even of savages, in our age, who are known to have imitated the apes which lived side by side with them in the forests of America and the islands. But we do know of large apes who, tamed and living in houses, will mimic men to the length of donning hats and coats. The writer once had a chimpanzee who, without being taught, opened a newspaper and pretended to read it. It is the descending generations, the children, who mimic their parents—not the reverse.

1613 _Ibid._, p. 151.

1614 It is asked, whether it would change one iota of the scientific truth and fact contained in the above sentence if it were to read: “the ape is simply an instance of the biped type specialized for going on all fours generally, and with a smaller brain.” Esoterically speaking, this is the real truth, and not the reverse.

1615 _Modern Science and Modern Thought_, pp. 151, 152.

1616 We cannot follow Mr. Laing here. When avowed Darwinists like Huxley point to “the great gulf which intervenes between the lowest ape and the highest man in intellectual power,” the “enormous gulf ... between them,” the “immeasurable and practically infinite divergence of the human from the simian stirps” (_Man’s Place in Nature_, p. 102 and note); when even the physical basis of mind—the brain—so _vastly_ exceeds in size that of the highest existing apes; when men like Wallace are forced to invoke the agency of extra‐terrestrial intelligences in order to explain the rise of such a creature as the pithecanthropus alalus, or speechless savage of Hæckel, to the level of the large‐brained and _moral_ man of to‐day—when all this is the case, it is idle to dismiss evolutionist puzzles so lightly. If the _structural_ evidence is so unconvincing and, taken as a whole, so hostile to Darwinism, the difficulties as to the “how” of the evolution of the human _mind_ by natural selection are tenfold greater.

1617 A race which MM. de Quatrefages and Hamy regard as a branch of the same stock whence the Canary Island Guanches sprung—offshoots of the Atlanteans, in short.

1618 _Ibid._, pp. 180‐182.

1619 _Pedigree of Man_, p. 73.

1620 Professor Owen believes that these muscles—the attollens, retrahens, and attrahens aurem—were actively functioning in men of the Stone age. This may or may not be the case. The question falls under the ordinary “occult” explanation, and involves no postulate of an “animal progenitor” to solve it.

1621 _Man’s Place in Nature_, p. 104. To cite another good authority: “We find one of the most man‐like apes (gibbon) in the Tertiary period, and this species is _still in the same low grade_, and _side by side_ with it at the end of the Ice period, man is found in the same high grade as to‐day, the ape not having approximated more nearly to the man, and modern man not having become further removed from the ape than the first (fossil) man ... these facts contradict a theory of constant progressive development.” (Pfaff.) When, according to Vogt, the average Australian brain = 99·35 cub. inches; that of the gorilla 30·51, and that of the chimpanzee only 25·45, the _giant gap_ to be bridged by the advocate of “Natural” Selection becomes apparent.

1622 Geo. T. Curtis, _Creation or Evolution?_ p. 76.

1623 “At this period,” writes Darwin, “the arteries run in arch‐like branches, as if to carry the blood to branchiæ which are not present in the higher vertebrata, though the slits on the side of the neck still remain, marking their former [?] position.”

It is noteworthy that, though gill‐clefts are absolutely useless to all but amphibia and fishes, etc., their appearance is regularly noted in the fœtal development of vertebrates. Even children are occasionally born with an opening in the neck corresponding to one of the clefts.

1624 Those who with Hæckel regard the gill‐clefts with their attendant phenomena as illustrative of an active function in our amphibian and piscine ancestors (see his twelfth and thirteenth stages), ought to explain why the “vegetable with leaflets” (Prof. André Lefèvre) represented in fœtal growth, does not appear in his twenty‐two stages through which the Monera have passed in their ascent to Man. Hæckel does _not_ postulate a _vegetable_ ancestor. The embryological argument is thus a two‐edged sword and here cuts its possessor.

1625 Lefèvre, _Philosophy Historical and Critical_, pt. ii. p. 480, “Library of Contemporary Science.”

1626 We confess to not being able to see any good reasons for Mr. E. Clodd’s positive statement in _Knowledge_. Speaking of the men of Neolithic times, “concerning whom Mr. Grant Allen has given ... a vivid and accurate sketch,” and who are “the direct ancestors of peoples of whom remnants yet lurk in out‐of‐the‐way corners of Europe, where they have been squeezed or stranded,” he adds, “but the men of Palæolithic times can be identified with no existing races; they were savages of a more degraded type than any extant; tall, yet barely erect, with short legs and twisted knees, with prognathous, that is, projecting ape‐like jaws, and small brains. Whence they come we cannot tell, and their ‘grave knoweth no man to this day.’ ”

Besides the possibility that there may be men who _know_ whence they came and how they perished—it is not true to say that the Palæolithic men, or their fossils, are all found with “small brains.” The oldest skull of all those hitherto found, the “Neanderthal skull,” is of average capacity, and Mr. Huxley was compelled to confess that it was no real approximation whatever to that of the “missing link.” There are aboriginal tribes in India whose brains are far smaller and nearer to that of the ape than any hitherto found among the skulls of Palæolithic man.

1627 _Antiquity of Man_, p. 246.

1628 The actual time required for such a theoretical transformation is necessarily enormous. “If,” says Professor Pfaff, “in the hundreds of thousands of years which you [the Evolutionists] accept between the rise of palæolithic man and our own day, a greater distance of man from the brute is not demonstrable [_the most ancient man was just as far removed from the brute as the now living man_], what reasonable ground can be advanced for believing that man has been developed from the brute, and has receded further from it by infinitely small gradations.... _The longer the interval of time placed between our times and the so‐called palæolithic men, the more ominous and destructive for the theory of the gradual development of man from the animal kingdom is the result stated._” Huxley writes (_Man’s Place in Nature_, p. 159) that the _most liberal_ estimates for the antiquity of man _must be still further_ extended.

1629 _Fortnightly Review_, 1882. The baselessness of this assertion, as well as that of many other exaggerations of the imaginative Mr. Grant Allen, was ably exposed by the eminent Anatomist, Professor R. Owen, in _Longman’s Magazine_, No. 1. Must it be repeated, moreover, that the Cro‐Magnon Palæolithic type is superior to that of a very large number of existing races?

1630 It thus stands to reason that Science would never dream of a Pre‐ Tertiary man, and that de Quatrefages’ Secondary man makes every Academician and F.R.S. faint with horror because, to preserve the ape‐theory, Science must make man Post‐Secondary. This is just what de Quatrefages has twitted the Darwinists with, adding, that on the whole there were more scientific reasons for tracing the ape from man than man from the anthropoid. With this exception Science has not one single valid argument to offer against the antiquity of man. But in this case modern Evolution demands far more than the fifteen million years of Croll for the Tertiary period, for two very simple but good reasons: (_a_) no anthropoid ape has been found before the Miocene period; (_b_) man’s flint relics have been traced to the Pliocene and their presence _suspected_, if not accepted by all, in the Miocene strata. Again, where is the “missing link” in such case? And how could even a Palæolithic savage, a “man of Canstadt,” evolve into a _thinking_ man from the brute dryopithecus of the Miocene _in so short a time_? One sees now the reason why Darwin rejected the theory that only 60,000,000 years had elapsed since the Cambrian period. “He judges from the small amount of organic change since the commencement of the glacial epoch, and adds that the previous 140 million years can hardly be considered as sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which certainly existed toward the close of the Cambrian period.” (Ch. Gould, _Mythical Monsters_, p. 84.)

1631 It may here be remarked that those Darwinians who, with Mr. Grant Allen, place our “hairy arboreal” ancestors so far back as the Eocene age, are landed in rather an awkward dilemma. No fossil anthropoid ape—much less the fabulous common ancestor assigned to man and the pithecoid—appears in Eocene strata. The first presentment of an anthropoid ape is Miocene.

1632 Ed. Lartet, “Nouvelles Recherches sur la Coëxistence de l’Homme et des Grands Mammifères Fossils de la Dernière Période Géologique.” _Annales des Soc. Nat._, xv. 256.

1633 See the Hibbert Lectures for 1887, p. 33.

1634 From a Report of the Hibbert Lectures, 1887. _Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as Illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Babylonians._ By A. H. Sayce.

1635 See _supra_ “Chronology of the Brâhmans.”

1636 _Nat. Philos._, by Thomson and Tait, App. D. Trans. Royal Soc., Edin., xxiii. pt. 1.

1637 _Popular Astronomy_, p. 509.

1638 _Climate and Time_, p. 335.

1639 Address, Liverpool Geological Society, 1876.

1640 _World‐Life_, pp. 179, 180.

1641 _Ibid._, pp. 367, 368.

1642 _Climate and Time._

1643 Quoted in Mr. Ch. Gould’s _Mythical Monsters_, p. 84.

1644 According to Bischof, 1,004,177 years, according to Chevandier’s calculations 672,788 years, were required for the so‐called Coal formation. “The time required for the development of the strata of the Tertiary period, ranging from 3,000 to 5,000 feet in thickness, must have been at least 350,000 years.” (See _Force and Matter_, Büchner, p. 159, Ed. 1884.)

1645 _Op. cit._, p. 379.

1646 But see “The Ice‐Age Climate and Time,” _Popular Science Review_, xiv. 242.

1647 Review of Kölliker’s Criticisms.

1648 _Fallacies of Darwinism_, p. 160.

1649 _The Genesis of Species_, Chap. VI, pp. 160‐162, Ed. 1871.

1650 _Man’s Place in Nature_, p. 102, note.

1651 Vol. x. art. “Geology,” p. 227. “100,000,000 of years is probably amply sufficient for all the requirements of Geology,” says the text. In France, some _savants_ do not find it nearly “sufficient.” Le Couturier claims 350 million years; Buffon was satisfied with 34 millions—but there are those in the more modern schools who will not be content with less than 500 million years.

1652 We are taught that the highest Dhyân Chohans, or Planetary Spirits (beyond the cognizance of the law of analogy), are in ignorance of what lies beyond the visible Planetary Systems, since their essence cannot assimilate itself to that of worlds beyond our Solar System. When they reach a higher stage of evolution these other universes will be open to them; meanwhile they have complete knowledge of all the worlds within the limits of our Solar System.

1653 Since no single atom in the entire Kosmos is without life and consciousness, how much more then must its mighty globes be filled with both—though they remain sealed books to us men who can hardly enter even into the consciousness of the forms of life nearest us?

We do not know _ourselves_, then how can we, if we have never been trained and initiated, fancy that we can penetrate the consciousness of the smallest of the animals around us?

1654 _Pluralité des Mondes_, p. 439.

1655 _Op. cit._, i. 4, 9.

1656 _Hebrews_, i. 2. This relates to the Logos of every Cosmogony. The _unknown_ Light—with which he is said to be coëternal and coëval—is reflected in the First‐Born, the Protogonos; and the Demiurgos or the Universal Mind directs his Divine Thought into the Chaos that under the fashioning of minor Gods will be divided into the Seven Oceans—Sapta Samudras. It is Purusha, Ahura Mazda, Osiris, etc., and finally the Gnostic Christos, who is in the _Kabalah_, Chokmah, or Wisdom, the “Word.”

1657 The _form_ of Tikkun or the Protogonos, “First‐Born,” _i.e._, the Universal Form and Idea, had not yet been mirrored in Chaos.

1658 _Zohar_, iii. 292c. The “Heavenly Man” is Adam Kadmon—the synthesis of the Sephiroth, as “Manu Svâyambhuva” is the synthesis of the Prajâpatis.

1659 _Bereshith Rabba_, Parsha IX.

1660 This refers to the three Rounds that preceded our Fourth Round.

1661 “Idra Suta,” _Zohar_, iii. 136c. “A sinking down from their status”—is plain; from active Worlds they have fallen into a temporary obscuration—they rest, and hence are entirely changed.

1662 _Gen._, xxxvi. 43.

1663 In that learned and witty work, _God and his Book_, by the redoubtable “Saladin” of Agnostic repute, the amusing calculation that, if Christ had ascended with the rapidity of a cannon ball, he would not yet have reached even Sirius, reminds one vividly of the past. It raises, perhaps, a not ill‐founded suspicion that even our age of scientific enlightenment may be as grossly absurd in its materialistic negations as the men of the Middle Ages were absurd and materialistic in their religious affirmations.

1664 _Philosophy Historical and Critical_, p. 481.

1665 Probably in excess.

1666 _Knowledge_, Art. “The Antiquity of Man in Western Europe,” March 31st, 1882.

1667 Who, in another work, _La Préhistorique Antiquité de l’Homme_, some twenty years ago, generously allowed only 230,000 years to our mankind! Since we learn now that he places man in the Mid‐Miocene period, we must say that the much respected Professor of Prehistoric Anthropology in Paris is somewhat contradictory and inconsistent, if not _naïf_ in his views.

1668 The root and basic idea of the origin and transformation of species—the _heredity_ of acquired faculties—seems to have found lately very serious opponents in Germany. Du Bois‐Reymond and Dr. Pflüger, the Physiologists, besides other men of Science as eminent as any, find insuperable difficulties and even impossibilities in the doctrine.

1669 _History of Creation_, p. 20.

1670 The same names are retained as those given by Science, to make the parallels clearer. Our terms are quite different.

1671 Let the student remember that the Doctrine teaches that there are seven degrees of Devas or “Progenitors,” or seven Classes, from the most perfect to the less exalted.

1672 It may be said that we are inconsistent in not introducing into this table a Primary‐age Man. The parallelism of Races and geological periods here adopted, is, so far as the origin of the First and Second are concerned, purely tentative, no direct information being available. Having previously discussed the question of a possible race in the Carboniferous age, it is needless to renew the debate.

1673 During the _interim_ between one Round and another, the Globe and everything on it remains _in statu quo_. Remember, vegetation began in its ethereal form before what is called the Primordial, running through the Primary, and condensing in it, and reaching its full physical life in the Secondary.

1674 Geologists tell us that “in the Secondary epoch, the only mammals which have been [hitherto] discovered in Europe are the fossil remains of a small marsupial or pouch‐bearer.” (_Knowledge_, March 31st, 1882, p. 464.) Surely the marsupial or didelphis (the only surviving animal of the family of those which were on Earth during the presence on it of androgyne man) cannot be the only animal that was then on Earth? Its presence speaks loudly for that of other (though unknown) mammals, besides the monotremes and marsupials, and thus shows the appellation of “mammalian age” given only to the Tertiary period to be misleading and erroneous, as it allows one to infer that there were no mammals, but reptiles, birds, amphibians, and fishes alone in the Mesozoic times—the Secondary.

1675 Those who feel inclined to sneer at that doctrine of Esoteric Ethnology, which pre‐supposes the existence of Men in the Secondary age, will do well to note the fact that one of the most distinguished Anthropologists of the day, M. de Quatrefages, seriously argues in that direction. He writes: “There is then nothing impossible in the idea that he [man] ... should have appeared upon the globe with the first representatives of the type to which he belongs by his organization.” (_The Human Species_, p. 153.) This statement approximates most closely to our fundamental assertion that man preceded the other mammalia.

Professor Lefèvre admits that the “labours of Boucher de Perthes, Lartet, Christy, Bourgeois, Desnoyers, Broca, De Mortillet, Hamy, Gaudry, Capellini, and a hundred others, have overcome all doubts, and clearly established the progressive development of the human organism and industries from the miocene epoch of the tertiary age.” (_Philosophy Historical and Critical_, Pt. II, p. 499,