Part 3 — Footnotes (continued 4)

1365.

The reason for it is simple, and was given in Isis Unveiled. In geometry, one straight line fails to represent a perfect figure, nor can two straight lines constitute a perfect figure. The triangle is the first perfect figure.

1366.

Ragon, ibid., p. 428, note.

1367.

Ibid., p. 431.

1368.

Op. cit., p. 113.

1369.

Now what is the meaning and the reason of this figure? The reason is that Manas is the fifth principle, and that the Pentagon is the symbol of Man—not only of the five-limbed, but rather of the thinking, conscious Man.

1370.

The reason for it becomes apparent when Egyptian symbology is studied. See further on.

1371.

Ibid., p. 114.

1372.

Ibid., pp. 114, 115.

1373.

Book of the Dead, lxxxviii. 2.

1374.

Philosophumena, v. 14.

1375.

See Philosophumena, v. 14.

1376.

So is Brahma's fifth head, said to be lost, burnt to ashes by Shiva's “central eye”; Shiva being also Panchânana “five-faced.” Thus the number is preserved and secrecy maintained on the true Esoteric meaning.

1377.

“When the Sun passes away behind the 30th degree of Makara and will reach no more the sign of the Mînam (Pisces) then the Night of Brahmâ has come.”

1378.

Death of every physical thing truly; but Mâra is also the unconscious quickener of the birth of the Spiritual.

1379.

Osiris is called in the Book of the Dead (cxlii. B. 17) “Osiris, the double crocodile.” “He is the good and the bad Principle; the Day and the Night Sun, the God and the mortal man.” Thus far the Macrocosm and the Microcosm.

1380.

Op. cit., p. 117.

1381.

King's Gnostics and their Remains, p. 297.

1382.

Reflecting on the cross, the author of The Source of Measures shows that this candlestick in the Temple “was so composed that, counting on either side, there were four candle-sockets; while, at the apex, there being one in common to both sides, there were in fact 3 to be counted on the one side and 4 on the other, making in all the number 7, upon the self-same idea of one in common with the cross display. Take a line of one unit in breadth by 3 units long, and place it on an incline; take another of 4 units long, and lean it upon this one, from an opposite incline, making the top unit of the 4 in length the corner or apex of a triangle. This is the display of the candlestick. Now, take away the line of 3 units in length, and cross it on the one of 4 units in length, and the cross form results. The same idea is conveyed in the six days of the week in Genesis, crowned by the seventh, which was used by itself as a base of circular measure” (p. 51).

1383.

From a MS. supposed to be by “St. Germain,” embodied by Ragon, op. cit., p. 434.

1384.

It had no such meaning in the beginnings, nor during the earlier dynasties.

1385.

From an unpublished MS.

1386.

From St. Germain's MS.

1387.

Yet this sense, if once mastered, will turn out to be the secure casket which holds the keys to the Secret Wisdom. True, a casket so profusely ornamented that its fancy-work hides and conceals entirely any spring for opening it, and thus makes the unintuitional believe it has not, and cannot have, any opening at all. Still the keys are there, deeply buried, yet ever present to him who searches for them.

1388.

Vishnu Purúna, I. xv; Wilson's Trans., ii. 29.

1389.

Quoted in Gerald Massey's The Natural Genesis, i. 427.

1390.

With the Christians, most undeniably. With the Pre-Christian Symbologists it was, as said, the Bed or Couch of Torture during the Initiation Mystery, the “Crucifix” being placed horizontally, on the ground, and not erect, as at the time when it became the Roman gallows.

1391.

So it was, and could not be otherwise. Julian, the Emperor, was an Initiate, and as such knew well the “mystery-meaning” both metaphysical and physical.

1392.

Op. cit., ibid., p. 433.

1393.

Book of the Dead. xxxix. Apophis or Apap is the Serpent of Evil, the symbol of human passions. The Sun (Osiris-Horus) destroys him, and Apap is thrown down, bound and chained. The God Aker, the “Chief of the Gate of the Abyss” of Aker, the Realm of the Sun (xv. 39), binds him. Apophis is the enemy of Ra (Light), but the “great Apap has fallen!” exclaims the Defunct. “The Scorpion has hurt thy mouth,” he says to the conquered enemy (xxxix. 7). The Scorpion is the “worm that never dies” of the Christians. Apophis is bound on the Tau or Tat, the “emblem of stability.” (See the erection of Tat in Tatoo, xviii.)

1394.

So have the crypts in Cis-Himâlayan regions where Initiates live, and where their ashes are placed for seven lunar years.

1395.

The Natural Genesis, i. 432.

1396.

The Cross and the Tree are identical and synonymous in symbolism.

1397.

lvii. 3.

1398.

Ibid., 5.

1399.

Sermon clx.

1400.

Vishnu Purâna, Wilson's Trans., iii. 174, note by Fitzedward Hall.

1401.

Hence the Initiates in Greece called the Tau Γαιήιος, “son of Gaia,” “sprung from Earth,” like Tityos in the Odyssey (vii. 324).

1402.

Ragon, Orthodoxie Maçonnique, etc., pp. 432, 433.

1403.

Ibid., p. 433, note.

1404.

See the Mahâbhârata, e.g., III. 189, 3, where Vishnu says, “I called the name of water Nârâ in ancient times, and am hence called Nârâyana, for that was always the abode I moved in (Ayana).” It is into the Water, or Chaos, the “Moist Principle” of the Greeks and Hermes, that the first seed of the Universe is thrown. “The ‘Spirit of God’ moves on the dark waters of Space”; hence Thales makes of it the primordial element and prior to Fire, which was yet latent in that Spirit.

1405.

See the bronze statue of Tripurântaka Shiva, “Mahâdeva destroying Tripurâsura,” at the Museum of the India House.

1406.

Ragon, ibid., p. 433, note.

1407.

There are learned Brâhmans who have protested against our septenary division. They are right from their own standpoint, as we are right from ours. Leaving the three aspects, or adjunct principles out of calculation, they accept only four Upâdhis, or Bases, including the Ego—the reflected image of the Logos in the Kârana Sharîra—and even “strictly speaking ... only three Upâdhis.” For purely theoretical metaphysical philosophy, or purposes of meditation, these three may be sufficient, as shown by the Târaka Yoga system; but for practical occult teaching our septenary division is the best and easiest. It is, however, a matter of school and choice.

1408.

Commentary, Book ix. F. 19.

1409.

Protista are not animals. The reader is asked to bear in mind that when we speak of “animals,” the mammalians alone are meant. Crustacea, fishes, and reptiles are contemporary with, and most have preceded, physical man in this Round. All were bisexual, however, before the age of mammalia in the closing portion of the Secondary or Mesozoic ages, yet nearer to the Palæozoic than the Cænozoic ages. Smaller marsupial mammalia are contemporary with the huge reptilian monsters of the Secondary.

1410.

Æneid, vi. 725-729. “First [Divine] Spirit within sustains the heavens, the earth and watery plains, the moon's orb and shining stars and the [Eternal] Mind diffused through all the parts [of Nature], actuates the whole stupendous frame and mingles with the vast body [of the Universe]. Thence proceed the race of men and beasts, the vital principles of the flying kind and the monsters which the Ocean breeds under its smooth crystal plane.” “All proceeds from Ether and from its seven natures”—said the Alchemists. Science knows these only in their superficial effects.

1411.

Compare Descent of Man, p. 164.

1412.

Bartlett's Land and Water.

1413.

Source of Measures, p. 65. The author explains: “Note that in Hebrew, Jared, the father of Enoch, is construed to be ‘the mount of descent,’ and it is said to be the same with Ararat, on which the cubical structure of Noah, or foundation measure, rested. Jared, in Hebrew, is י־רד. The root derivations are the same with those of Ararat, of acre, of earth. The Hebrew י־רד is literally, in British, Y R D; hence, in Jared, is to be found literally, our English word yard (and also י־רד, for Jah, or Jehovah, is rod). It is noteworthy that the son of Jared, viz., Enoch, lived 365 years; and it is said of him, by rabbinical commentators, that the year period of 365 days was discovered by him, thus bringing, again, time and distance values together, i.e., year time descended, by coördination, through the yard, or Jared, who thus was its father, in or through Enoch; and truly enough, 1296 = yard (or Jared) × 4 = 5184, the characteristic value of the solar day, in thirds, which, as stated, may be styled the parent, numerically, of the solar year” (ibid.). This, however, by the astronomical and numerical kabalistic methods. Esoterically, Jared is the Third Race and Enoch the Fourth—but as he is taken away alive he symbolizes also the Elect saved in the Fourth, while Noah is the Fifth from the beginning—the family saved from the Waters, eternally and physically.

1414.

vii. 2, 3.

1415.

Five Years of Theosophy, pp. 202, 203.

1416.

Ibid., p. 200.

1417.

Oliver's Pythagorean Triangle, p. 104.

1418.

De Anim. Procr., 1027.

1419.

Oliver, ibid., p. 112.

1420.

Reuchlin è Cabala, l. ii; Oliver, ibid., p. 104.

1421.

In The Source of Measures, the author shows (pp. 50, 51) that the figure of the cube unfolded in connection with the circle “becomes ... a cross proper, or of the tau form, and the attachment of the circle to this last gives the ansated cross of the Egyptians.... While there are but 6 faces to a cube, the representation of the cross as the cube unfolded, as to the cross-bars, displays one face of the cube as common to two bars, counted as belonging to either [i.e., once counted horizontally, and once vertically]; ... 4 for the upright, and 3 for the cross-bar, making seven in all. Here we have the famous 4 and 3 and 7.” Esoteric Philosophy explains that four is the symbol of the Universe in its potential state, or Chaotic Matter, and that it requires Spirit to permeate it actively; i.e., the primordial abstract Triangle has to quit its one-dimensional quality and spread across that Matter, thus forming a manifested basis on the three-dimensional space, in order that the Universe should manifest intelligibly. This is achieved by the cube unfolded. Hence the ansated cross as the symbol of man, generation and life. In Egypt Ank signified “soul,” “life” and “blood.” It is the ensouled, living man, the septenary.

1422.

Supra, p. 626.

1423.

Oliver, ibid., p. 114.

1424.

Pythag., p. 61.

1425.

Oliver, ibid., p. 172.

1426.

De Plac. Phil., p. 878.

1427.

See Oliver, ibid., p. 106.

1428.

Ibid., p. 108.

1429.

Reuchlin, ut supra, p. 689; Oliver, ibid., pp. 112, 113.

1430.

Oliver, ibid., p. 118.

1431.

Bucolica, Ecl. viii. 75.

1432.

Philo, De Mund. Opif.; Oliver, ibid., p. 172.

1433.

The seven Planets are not limited to this number because the Ancients knew of no others, but simply because they were the primitive or primordial “Houses” of the seven Logoi. There may be nine and ninety-nine other planets discovered—this does not alter the fact of these seven alone being sacred.

1434.

Oliver, ibid., pp. 173, 174.

1435.

Ibid., loc. cit.

1436.

The Natural Genesis, i. 545.

1437.

Ibid.

1438.

In Timæus, iii.; ibid.

1439.

Oliver, ibid., p. 175.

1440.

See Section F., infra, “The Seven Souls of the Egyptologists.”

1441.

The Seven Centres of Energy evolved, or rendered objective by the action of Fohat upon the One Element; or, in fact, the “Seventh Principle” of the Seven Elements which exist throughout manifested Kosmos. We may here point out that they are in truth the Sephiroth of the Kabalists; the “Seven gifts of the Holy Ghost” in the Christian system; and in a mystical sense, the seven children or sons of Devakî killed before the birth of Krishna by Kansa. Our seven principles symbolize all of these. We have to part or separate from them before we reach the Krishna or Christ-state, that of a Jîvanmukta, and centre ourselves entirely in the highest, the Seventh or the One.

1442.

Μοῖρα, is destiny, not “Fate,” in this case, as it is an appellation, not a proper noun. (See Wolf's transl., Odyssey, xxii. 413.) But Moira, the Goddess of Fate, is a deity who, like Αἶσα, gives to all their portion of good and evil (Liddell and Scott's Lexicon), and is therefore Karma. By this abbreviation, however, the subject to Destiny or Karma is meant, the Self or Ego, and that which is reborn. Nor is Ἀντιμῖμον Πνεύματος our conscience, but our Buddhî; nor is it again the “counterfeit” of Spirit but “modelled after,” or a “counterpart” (Aristoph., Thesmophor., 27) of the Spirit—which Buddhî is, as the vehicle of Âtmâ.

1443.

The Gnostics and their Remains, pp. 37, 38.

1444.

Rig Veda, iii. 54. 16; ii. 29. 3, 4.

1445.

Prof. Roth (in Peter's Lexicon) defines the Angirasas as an intermediate race of higher Beings between Gods and Men; while Prof. Weber, according to his invariable custom of modernizing and anthropomorphizing the divine, sees in them the original priests of the religion which was common to the Âryan Hindûs and Persians. Roth is right. “Angirasas” was one of the names of the Dhyânîs, or Deva-Instructors (Guru-Devas), of the late Third, the Fourth, and even of the Fifth Race Initiates.

1446.

Ibid., x. 62. 1, 4.

1447.

Ibid., x. 90. 1.

1448.

Ibid., x. 90. 5.

1449.

Rig Veda, x. 113. 5.

1450.

Ibid., i. 35. 8.

1451.

Ibid., loc. cit.

1452.

Ibid., ix. 86. 29.

1453.

Only three submerged, or otherwise destroyed, Continents—for the first Continent of the First Race exists to this day and will prevail to the last—are described in the Occult Doctrine, the Hyperborean, the Lemurian (adopting a name now known in Science), and the Atlantean. Most of Asia issued from under the waters after the destruction of Atlantis; Africa came still later, while Europe is the fifth and the latest continent—portions of the two Americas being far older. But of these, more anon. The Initiates who recorded the Vedas—or the Rishis of our Fifth Race—wrote at a time when Atlantis had already gone down. Atlantis is the fourth Continent that appeared, but the third that disappeared.

1454.

Compare Vishvakarman.

1455.

Ibid., x. 20. 1, 16.

1456.

Nor is this Archaic Teaching so very unscientific, since one of the greatest Naturalists of the age—the late Professor Agassiz—admitted the multiplicity of the geographical origins of man, and supported it to the end of his life. The unity of the human species was accepted by the illustrious Professor of Cambridge (U.S.A.) in the same way as it is by the Occultists—namely, in the sense of their essential and original homogeneity and their origin from one and the same source, e.g., Negroes, Âryans, Mongols, etc., have all originated in the same way and from the same ancestors. These latter were all of one essence, though differentiated, since they belonged to seven planes which differed in degree though not in kind. That original physical difference was only a little more accentuated by that of geographical and climatic conditions, later on. This is not the theory of Agassiz, of course, but the Esoteric version. It is fully discussed in the Addenda, Part III.

1457.

See the enumeration of the seven Spheres—not the “Karshvare of the earth,” as generally believed—in Fargard xix. 30, et seqq.

1458.

The seven Worlds are, as has been said, the seven Spheres of the Chain, each presided over by one of the seven “Great Gods” of every religion. When the religions became degraded and anthropomorphized, and the metaphysical ideas nearly forgotten, the synthesis or the highest, the seventh, was separated from the rest, and that personification became the eighth God, whom Monotheism tried to unify but—failed. In no exoteric religion is God really one, if analyzed metaphysically.

1459.

The six invisible Globes of our Chain are both “Worlds” and “Earths” as is our own, although invisible. But where could be the six invisible Earths on this Globe?

1460.

Vendîdâd, S. B. E., vol. iv. pp. lix. lx., and note.

1461.

See Rig Veda, i. 34; iii. 56; vii. 10. 411, and v. 60. 6.

1462.

Vendîdâd, op. cit., p. 13.

1463.

Death came only after man had become a physical creature. The men of the First Race, and also of the Second, dissolved and disappeared in their progeny.

1464.

Op. cit., p. 12.

1465.

I. xxiv. 1.

1466.

Vishnu Purâna, Wilson's Trans., i. lxxx.

1467.

As Parâshara says: “These are the seven persons by whom in the several Manvantaras created beings have been protected. Because the whole world has been pervaded by the energy of the deity, he is entitled Vishnu, from the root Vish, ‘to enter,’ or ‘'pervade’; for all the gods, the Manus, the seven Rishis, the sons of the Manus, the Indras, the sovereigns of the gods, all are but the impersonated might [Vibhûtayah, potencies] of Vishnu.” (Ibid., iii. 18, 19.) Vishnu is the Universe; and the Universe itself is divided in the Rig Veda into seven regions—which ought to be sufficient authority, for the Brâhmans at all events.

1468.

Ibid., iii. 15.

1469.

Hymn xix. 53.

1470.

Vishnu is all—the worlds, the stars, the seas, etc. Vishnu “is all that is, all that is not.... [But] he is not a substance (Vastubhûta).” (Vishnu Purâna, Book II, Ch. xii; Wilson's Trans., ii. 309.) “That which people call the highest God is not a substance but the cause of it; not one that is here, there, or elsewhere, not what we see, but that in which all is—Space.”

1471.

Vishnu Purâna, Wilson's Trans., ii. 306.

1472.

Therefore it is said in the Purânas that the sight at night of Dhruva, the polar star, and of the celestial Porpoise (Shishumâra, a constellation) “expiates whatever sin has been committed during the day.” (Ibid., p. 306.) The fact is that the rays of the four stars in the “circle of perpetual apparition”—the Agni, Mahendra, Kashyapa, and Dhruva, placed in the tail of Ursa Minor (Shishumâra)—focussed in a certain way and on a certain object, produce extraordinary results. The Astro-magians of India will understand what is meant.

1473.

Ibid., iii. 15.

1474.

Dowson's Hindû Classical Dictionary, sub voc. “Shiva,” p. 298.

1475.

Vishnu Purâna, op. cit., ii. 78.

1476.

In the Râmâyana it is Bâla-Râma, Krishna's elder brother, who does this.

1477.

With regard to the origin of Rudra, it is stated in several Purânas that his (spiritual) progeny, created in him by Brahmâ, is not confined to either the seven Kumâras or the eleven Rudras, etc., but “comprehends infinite numbers of beings in person and equipments like their (virgin) father. Alarmed at their fierceness, numbers, and immortality, Brahmâ desires his son Rudra to form creatures of a different and mortal nature.” Rudra refusing to create, desists, etc., hence Rudra is the first rebel. (Linga, Vâyu, Matsya, and other Purânas.)

1478.

Diti is shown to have been thus frustrated in the Dvâpara Yuga, during that period when the Fourth Race was flourishing.

1479.

Notwithstanding the terrible, and evidently purposed, confusion of Manus, Rishis, and their progeny in the Purânas, one thing is made clear: there have been and there will be seven Rishis in every Root-Race, called also Manvantara in the sacred books, just as there are fourteen Manus in every Round, the presiding Gods, the Rishis and sons of the Manus, being identical. (See Vishnu Purâna, III. i; Wilson's Trans., iii. 19.) Six Manvantaras are given, the seventh being our own, in the Vishnu Purâna. The Vâyu Purâna furnishes the nomenclature of the sons of the fourteen Manus in every Manvantara, and the sons of the seven Sages or Rishis. The latter are the progeny of the Progenitors of mankind. All the Purânas speak of the seven Prajâpatis of this period or Round.

1480.

“Châkshusha was the Manu of the sixth period [Third Round and Third Race], in which Indra was Manojava”—Mantradruma in the Bhâgavata Purâna. (Vishnu Purâna, Wilson's Trans., iii. 12.) As there is a perfect analogy between the Great Round (Mahâkalpa), each of the seven Rounds, and each of the seven great Races in every one of the Rounds—therefore, Indra of the sixth period, or Third Round, corresponds to the close of the Third Race, at the time of the Fall or the separation of sexes. Rudra, as the father of the Maruts, has many points of contact with Indra, the Marutvân, or “Lord of the Maruts.” Rudra is said to have received his name because of his weeping. Hence Brahmâ called him Rudra; but he wept yet seven times more and so obtained seven other names—of which he uses one during each “period.”

1481.

Ibid., ii. 231.

1482.

In Vishnu Puranâ, Book II. Chap. iv. (Wilson, ii. 205), it is stated that the “Earth,” “with its continents, mountains, oceans, and exterior shell, is fifty crores [five hundred millions] of Yojanas in extent”; to which the translator remarks: “This comprises the planetary spheres; for the diameter of the seven zones and oceans—each ocean being of the same diameter as the continent it encloses, and each successive continent being twice the diameter of that which precedes it—amounts to but two crores or fifty-four lakhs.... ‘Whenever any contradictions in different Purânas are observed, they are to be ascribed ... to differences of Kalpas and the like.’ ” “The like” ought to read “occult meaning,” an explanation which is withheld by the commentator, who wrote for exoteric, sectarian purposes, and was misunderstood by the translator for various other reasons, the least of which is—ignorance of the Esoteric Philosophy.

1483.

The Phœnix, although generally connected with the Solar Cycle of 600 years—the Western cycle of the Greeks and other nations—is a generic symbol for several kinds of cycles, ciphers being taken out or more added according to which cycle is meant.

1484.

See Book of Ali, Russian transl.

1485.

The tense is past, because the book is allegorical, and has to veil the truths it contains.

1486.

Oriental Collections, ii. 119; quoted by Kenealy, op. cit., pp. 175, 176.

1487.

Ibid., loc. cit.

1488.

Op. cit., xvii. 9, 10.

1489.

Section VI; Leviticus, xxiii. 15, et seqq.

1490.

Vie de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, Introduction; quoted by De Mirville, Pneumatologie, iv. 50.

1491.

See Suidas, sub voc. Ἥλιος.

1492.

Pliny, Hist. Nat., vii. 56.

1493.

“Menses in quinos dies descripserunt dies” (lviii. 9).

1494.

Lib. i. c. 26.

1495.

Hist. Nat., vii. 48, and Life of Numa, 16.

1496.

Mèm. Acad. Ins., xvi. c. 48; iii. 183.

1497.

Voyage en Sibérie, iii. 19.

1498.

The spheres of action of the combined Forces of Evolution and Karma are (1) the Super-spiritual or Noumenal; (2) the Spiritual; (3) the Psychic; (4) the Astro-ethereal; (5) the Sub-astral; (6) the Vital; and (7) the purely Physical Spheres.

1499.

Adbhutam, see Atharva Veda, x. 105.

1500.

In Hindûism, as understood by the Orientalists from the Atharva Veda, the three Rajamsi refer to the three “strides” of Vishnu; his ascending higher step being taken in the highest world (A. V., vii. 99, 1; cf. i. 155, 5). It is the Divo Rajah, or the “sky,” as they think it. But it is something besides this in Occultism. The sentence, pâreshu gûhyeshu vrateshu (cf., i. 155, 3, and ix. 75, 2, or again, x. 114), in Atharva Veda, has yet to be explained.

1501.

Medical Review, July, 1844.

1502.

H. Grattan Guinness, F.R.G.S., in his Approaching End of the Age, p. 258.

1503.

Lancet, 1842, 1843.

1504.

Having given a number of illustrations from natural history, the doctor adds: “The facts I have briefly glanced at are general facts, and cannot happen day after day in so many millions of animals of every kind. from the larva or ovum of a minute insect up to man, at definite periods, from a mere chance or coincidence.... Upon the whole it is, I think, impossible to come to any less general conclusion than this, that, in animals, changes occur every three and a half, seven, fourteen, twenty-one, or twenty-eight days, or at some definite number of weeks”—or septenary cycles. Again, the same Dr. Laycock states that: “Whatever type the fever may exhibit, there will be a paroxysm on the seventh day.... fourteenth will be remarkable as a day of amendment ... [either cure or death taking place]. If the fourth [paroxysm] be severe, and the fifth less so, the disease will end at the seventh paroxysm, and ... the change for the better ... will be seen on the fourteenth day ... namely, about three or four o'clock a.m., when the system is most languid.” (Approaching End of the Age, by Grattan Guinness, pp. 258 to 269, wherein this is quoted). This is pure “soothsaying” by cyclic calculations, and it is connected with Chaldæan Astrolatry and Astrology. Thus Materialistic Science—in its medicine, the most materialistic of all—applies our Occult laws to diseases, studies natural history with its help, recognizes its presence as a fact in Nature, and yet must needs pooh-pooh the same archaic knowledge when claimed by the Occultists. For if the mysterious Septenary Cycle is a law in Nature, and it is one, as proven; if it is found controlling both evolution and involution (or death) in the realms of entomology, ichthyology and ornithology, as in the kingdom of the animal mammalia and man—why cannot it be present and acting in Kosmos, in general, in its natural (though occult) divisions of time, races, and mental development? And why, furthermore, should not the most ancient Adepts have studied and thoroughly mastered these cyclic laws under all their aspects? Indeed, Dr. Stratton states as a physiological and pathological fact, that “in health the human pulse is more frequent in the morning than in the evening for six days out of seven; and that on the seventh day it is slower.” (Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, Jan. 1843; ibid., loc. cit.) Why, then, should not an Occultist show the same in cosmic and terrestrial life in the pulse of the Planet and Races? Dr. Laycock divides life by three great septenary periods; the first and last, each stretching over 21 years, and the central period or prime of life lasting 28 years, or four times seven. He subdivides the first into seven distinct stages, and the other two into three minor periods, and says that: “The fundamental unit of the greater periods is one week of seven days, each day being twelve hours, and that single and compound multiples of this unit, determine the length of these periods by the same ratio, as multiples of the unit of twelve hours determine the lesser periods. This law binds all periodic vital phenomena together, and links the periods observed in the lowest annulose animals, with those of man himself, the highest of the vertebrata.” (Ibid., p. 267.) If Science does this, why should she scorn the Occult information, that—to use Dr. Laycock's language—one Week of the Manvantaric (Lunar) Fortnight, of fourteen Days (or seven Manus), that Fortnight of twelve Hours in a Day representing seven Periods or seven Races—is now passed? This language of Science fits our Doctrine admirably. Mankind has lived over “a week of seven days, each day being twelve hours,” since three and a half Races are now gone for ever, the Fourth is submerged, and we are now in the Fifth Race.

1505.

Op. cit., p. 269.

1506.

See for the length of such cycles or Yugas in Vriddha Garga and other ancient astronomical sections (Jyotisha). They vary from the cycle of five years—which Colebrooke calls “the cycle of the Vedas,” specified in the institutes of Parâshara, “and the basis of calculation for larger cycles” (Miscell. Essays, i. 106 and 108)—up to the Mahâ Yuga or the famous cycle of 4,320,000 years.

1507.

The Hebrew word for “week” is seven; and any length of time divided by seven would have been a “week” with them—even 49,000,000 years, as it is seven times seven millions. But their calculation is throughout septiform.

1508.

Brahmâ creates in the first Kalpa, or on the first Day, various “sacrificial animals” (Pashavah), or the celestial bodies and the Zodiacal signs, and “plants,” which he uses in sacrifices at the opening of Tretâ Yuga. The Esoteric meaning shows him proceeding cyclically and creating astral Prototypes on the descending spiritual arc and then on the ascending physical arc. The latter is the subdivision of a two-fold creation, sub-divided again into seven descending and seven ascending degrees of Spirit falling, and of Matter ascending; the inverse of what takes place—as in a mirror which reflects the right on the left side—in this Manvantara of ours. It is the same Esoterically in the Elohistic Genesis (chap. i), and in the Jehovistic copy, as in Hindû cosmogony.

1509.

Op. cit., vv. 70, 71, 80; The Kabbalah Unveiled, S. L. MacGregor Mathers, pp. 120, 121.

1510.

“The Greater Holy Assembly,” v. 1,160.

1511.

See Vishnu Purâna, I. v.

1512.

It is very surprising to see theologians and Oriental scholars expressing indignation at the “depraved taste” of the Hindû mystics, who, not content with having “invented” the Mind-born Sons of Brahmâ, make the Rishis, Manus, and Prajâpatis of every kind spring from various parts of the body of their primal Progenitor, Brahmâ. (See Wilson's footnote in his Vishnu Purâna, i. 102.) Because the average public is unacquainted with the Kabalah, the key to, and glossary of, the much veiled Mosaic Books, therefore, the clergy imagines the truth will never out. Let any one turn to the English, Hebrew, or Latin texts of the Kabalah, now so ably translated by several scholars, and he will find that the Tetragrammaton, which is the Hebrew IHVH, is also both the “Sephirothal Tree”—i.e., it contains all the Sephiroth except Kether, the crown—and the united Body of the Heavenly Man (Adam Kadmon) from whose Limbs emanate the Universe and everything in it. Furthermore, he will find that the idea in the Kabalistic Books, the chief of which in the Zohar are the “Book of Concealed Mystery,” and of the “Greater” and the “Lesser Holy Assembly,” is entirely phallic and far more crudely expressed than is the four-fold Brahmâ in any of the Purânas. (See The Kabbalah Unveiled, by S. L. MacGregor Mathers, 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, Chapter II, On Organic Evolution. “Library of Contemporary Science.”) Why does he reject the possibility of a Secondary-age man? Simply because he is involved in the meshes of the Darwinian Anthropology. “The origin of man is bound up with that of the higher mammals”; he appeared “only with the last types of his class”! This is not argument, but dogmatism. Theory can never excommunicate fact. Must everything give place to the mere working hypotheses of Western Evolutionists? Surely not!

1676.

These placentalia of the third sub-class are divided, it appears, into villiplacentalia (placenta composed of many separate scattered tufts), the zonoplacentalia (girdle-shaped placenta), and the discoplacentalia (or discoid). Hæckel sees in the marsupialia didelphia, one of the connecting links genealogically between man and the moneron!!

1677.

This inclusion of the First Race in the Secondary is necessarily only a provisional working hypothesis—the actual chronology of the First, Second, and early Third Races being closely veiled by the Initiates. For all that can be said on the subject, the First Root-Race may have been Pre-Secondary, as is, indeed, taught.

1678.

The above parallels stand good only if Professor Croll's earlier calculations are adopted, namely, of 15,000,000 years since the beginning of the Eocene period (see Charles Gould's Mythical Monsters, p. 84), not those in his Climate and Time, which allow only two-and-a-half million years, or at the utmost three million years' duration to the Tertiary age. This, however, would make the whole duration of the incrusted age of the world only 131,600,000 years, according to Professor Winchell, whereas in the Esoteric Doctrine, sedimentation began in this Round approximately over 320,000,000 years ago. Yet his calculations do not clash much with ours with regard to the epochs of glacial periods in the Tertiary age, which is called in our Esoteric books the “Age of the Pigmies.” With regard to the 320,000,000 of years assigned to sedimentation, it must be noted that even a greater time elapsed during the preparation of this Globe for the Fourth Round previous to stratification.

1679.

Though we apply the term “truly human,” only to the Fourth Atlantean Root-Race, yet the Third Race is almost human in its latest portion, since it is during its fifth sub-race that mankind separated sexually, and that the first man was born according to the now normal process. This “first man” answers, in the Bible, to Enos or Henoch, son of Seth (Genesis, iv.).

1680.

Geology records the former existence of a universal ocean, and sheets of marine sediment uniformly present everywhere testify to it; but it is not even the epoch referred to in the allegory of Vaivasvata Manu. The latter is a Deva-Man (or Manu) saving in an Ark (the female principle) the germs of humanity, and also the seven Rishis—who stand here as the symbols for the seven human principles—of which allegory we have spoken elsewhere. The “Universal Deluge” is the Watery Abyss of the Primordial Principle of Berosus. (See Stanzas ii to viii, in Part I.) How, if 15 million years are allowed by Croll to have elapsed since the Eocene period (which we state on the authority of a Geologist, Mr. Ch. Gould), only 60 millions are assigned by him “since the beginning of the Cambrian period, in the Primordial age”—passes comprehension. The Secondary strata are twice the thickness of the Tertiary, and Geology thus shows the Secondary age alone to be of twice the length of the Tertiary. Shall we then accept only 15 million years for both the Primary and the Primordial? No wonder Darwin rejected the calculation.

1681.

See Esoteric Buddhism, pp. 53-55, Fourth Ed.

1682.

We hope that we have furnished all the scientific data for it elsewhere.

1683.

It is conceded by Geology to be “beyond doubt that a considerable period must have supervened after the departure of Palæolithic man and before the arrival of his Neolithic successor.” (See James Geikie's Prehistoric Europe, and Ch. Gould's Mythical Monsters, p. 98.)

1684.

Resembling in a manner the pile-villages of Northern Borneo.

1685.

“The most clever sculptor of modern times would probably not succeed very much better, if his graver were a splinter of flint, and stone and bone were the materials to be engraved”! (Prof. Boyd Dawkins' Cave-Hunting, p. 344.) It is needless after such a concession to further insist on Huxley's, Schmidt's, Laing's, and others' statements to the effect that Palæolithic man cannot be considered to lead us back in any way to a pithecoid human race; thus they demolish the fantasies of many superficial evolutionists. The relic of artistic merit here reäppearing in the Chipped-Stone-age men, is traceable to their Atlantean ancestry. Neolithic man was a fore-runner of the great Âryan invasion, and immigrated from quite another quarter—Asia, and in a measure Northern Africa. The tribes peopling the latter towards the North-West, were certainly of an Atlantean origin—dating back hundreds of thousands of years before the Neolithic Period in Europe—but they had so diverged from the parent type as to present no longer any marked characteristic peculiar to it. As to the contrast between Neolithic and Palæolithic man, it is a remarkable fact that, as Carl Vogt points out, the former was a cannibal, the much earlier man of the Mammoth era was not. Human manners and customs do not seem to improve with time, then? Not in this instance at any rate.

1686.

Op. cit., p. 97.

1687.

Modern Science and Modern Thought, p. 181.

1688.

Ibid., p. 112.

1689.

On the data furnished by Modern Science, Physiology, and Natural Selection, and without resorting to any miraculous creation, two human negro specimens of the lowest intelligence—say idiots born dumb—might by breeding produce a dumb Pastrana species, which would start a new modified race, and thus produce, in the course of geological time, the regular anthropoid ape.

1690.

Esoteric Buddhism, p. 64.

1691.

Modern Science and Modern Thought, p. 98.

1692.

Anfänge zu einer Physiologischen Schöpfungs-geschichte der Pflanzen- und Thierwelt, 1885.

1693.

Op. cit., p. 212.

1694.

Ibid., p. 11.

1695.

Man's Place in Nature, p. 159.

1696.

Sir W. Dawson, LL.D., F.R.S., Origin of the World, p. 39.

1697.

Prehistoric Antiquity of Man, 1883.

1698.

Antiquity of Man, p. 25.

1699.

India, What can it Teach Us? A course of Lectures delivered before the University of Cambridge in 1882. Lecture III., p. 110, Ed. 1892.

1700.

Antiquity of Man Historically Considered. “Present Day Tracts,” Vol. II, Essay IX, p. 25.

1701.

Op. cit., pp. 10, 11.

1702.

Op. cit., i. 4.

1703.

Palæolithic man must have been endowed in his day with thrice Herculean force and magic invulnerability, or else the lion was as weak as a lamb at that period, for both to share the same dwelling. We may as well be asked to believe that it is that lion or hyæna which engraved the deer on the antler, as be told that this piece of workmanship was done by a savage of such a kind.

1704.

Modern Science and Modern Thought, p. 164.

1705.

Ibid., p. 199.

1706.

More than twenty specimens of fossil monkeys have been found in one locality alone, in Miocene strata (Pikermi, near Athens). If man was not then, the period is too short for him to have been transformed—stretch it as one may. And if he was, and if no monkey is found earlier, what follows?

1707.

Dr. C. Carter Blake, Art., “The Genesis of Man.”

1708.

Antiquity of Man, p. 530.

1709.

New Series, i. 115, Art., “Evidences of the Age of Ice.”

1710.

Fallacies of Darwinism.

1711.

Op. cit., p. 501, Ed. 1863.

1712.

Op. cit., iv. 162.

1713.

See on this question Wilson's Prehistoric Man, ii. 54; Origin of the World, pp. 393, 394.

1714.

And how much more “enormous” if we reverse the subjects, and say during the monkey's development from the Third Race Man.

1715.

Op. cit., pp. 160, 161.

1716.

Principles of Biology, i. 345.

1717.

Modern Science and Modern Thought, p. 94.

1718.

Ibid.

1719.

The Darwinian theory has been so strained, that even Huxley was forced at one time to deprecate its occasional degeneration into “fanaticism.” Oscar Schmidt presents a good instance of a thinker who unconsciously exaggerates the worth of a hypothesis. He admits (The Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism, p. 158), that “natural selection ... is in some cases ... inadequate, ... in others ... not requisite, as the solution of the formation of species is found in other natural conditions.” He also asserts the “intermediate grades are ... wanting, which would entitle us to infer with certainty the direct transition from implacental to placental mammals” (p. 271); that “we are referred entirely to conjecture and inference for the origin of the mammals” (p. 268); and he speaks of the repeated failures of the framers of “hypothetical pedigrees,” more especially of Hæckel, while regarding their attempts as valuable (p. 250). Nevertheless he asserts (p. 194) that “what we have gained by the doctrine of descent based on the theory of selection ... is the knowledge of the connection of organisms as consanguineous beings.” Knowledge, in the face of the above-cited concessions, is, then, the synonym for conjecture and theory only?

1720.

The Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism, p. 268.

1721.

Ibid., pp. 273-275.

1722.

Bear in mind, please, that though the animals—mammalians included—have all been evolved after and partially from man's cast-off tissues, still, as a far lower being, the mammalian animal became placental and separated far earlier than man.

1723.

Scientists now admit that Europe enjoyed in the Miocene times a warm, in the Pliocene or later Tertiary, a temperate climate. Littré's contention as to the balmy spring of the Quaternary—to which deposits M. de Perthes' discoveries of flint implements are traceable (since when the Somme has worn down its valley many scores of feet)—must be accepted with much reservation. The Somme-Valley relics are post-glacial, and possibly point to the immigration of savages during one of the more temperate periods intervening between minor ages of Ice.

1724.

“Whence they [the old cave-men] came, we cannot tell” (Grant Allen). “The palæolithic hunters of the Somme Valley did not originate in that inhospitable climate, but moved into Europe from some more genial region” (Dr. Southall, Epoch of the Mammoth, p. 315).

1725.

The pure Atlantean stocks—of which the tall Quaternary cave-men were, in part, the direct descendants—immigrated into Europe long prior to the Glacial period; in fact as far back as the Pliocene and Miocene times in the Tertiary. The worked Miocene flints of Thenay, and the traces of Pliocene man discovered by Professor Capellini in Italy, are witnesses to the fact. These colonists were portions of the once glorious Race, whose cycle from the Eocene onwards had been running down the scale.

1726.

The artistic skill displayed by the old cave-men renders the hypothesis which regards them as approximations to the pithecanthropus alalus—that very mythical Hæeckelian monster—an absurdity requiring no Huxley or Schmidt to expose it. We see in their skill in engraving a gleam of Atlantean culture atavistically reäppearing. It will be remembered that Donnelly regards modern European civilization as a renaissance of the Atlantean. (Atlantis, pp. 237-264.)

1727.

Philosophy Historical and Critical, Pt. II. p. 504, chap., “On Organic Evolution.”

1728.

Lettres sur l'Atlantide, p. 12.

1729.

Histoire de l'Astronomie Ancienne, pp. 25, et seqq.

1730.

Lettres sur l'Atlantide, p. 15. This conjecture is but a half-guess. There were such “deluges of barbarians” in the Fifth Race. With regard to the Fourth, it was a bonâ fide deluge of water which swept it away. Neither Voltaire nor Bailly, however, knew anything of the Secret Doctrine of the East.

1731.

For a full discussion of the relations between the old Greeks and Romans, and the Atlantean colonists, see Five Years of Theosophy, pp. 308-346.

1732.

Timæus, translated by H. Davis, pp. 326-328.

1733.

The story about Atlantis and all the traditions thereon were told, as all know, by Plato in his Timæus and Critias. Plato, when a child, had it from his grand-sire Critias, aged ninety, who in his youth had been told of it by Solon, his father Dropides' friend—Solon, one of the Seven Sages of Greece. No more reliable source could be found, we should think.

1734.

See Dr. Carter Blake's paper “On the Naulette Jaw,” Anthropological Review, Sept., 1867.

1735.

See de Quatrefages and Hamy, Crânes des Races Humaines.

1736.

Hæckel's “man-ape” of the Miocene period is the dream of a monomaniac, which de Quatrefages (Human Species, pp. 105-113) has cleverly disposed of. It is not clear why the world should accept the lucubrations of a psychophobic Materialist—to accept whose theory necessitates the acceptance on faith of various animals unknown to Science or Nature, like the Sozura, for instance, that amphibian which has never existed anywhere outside Hæckel's imagination—rather than the traditions of antiquity.

1737.

But see the mass of evidence collected by Donnelly to prove the Peruvian colony an offshoot of the Atlanteans.

1738.

Cavernes de Périgord, p. 35.

1739.

The ingenious author of Atlantis, the Ante-diluvian World, in discussing the origin of various Grecian and Roman institutions, expresses his conviction that “the roots of the institutions of to-day reach back to the Miocene age.” Ay, and further yet, as already stated.

1740.

The Human Species, p. 152.

1741.

As we know them, however. For not only does Geology prove that the British Islands have been four times submerged and reëlevated, but that the straits between them and Europe were dry land at a former remote epoch.

1742.

See, in Isis Unveiled (i. 627), what Kullûka Bhatta says.

1743.

Les Origines de la Terre et de l'Homme, p. 454. To this, Professor N. Joly, of Toulouse, who thus quotes the Abbé in his Man before Metals, expresses the hope that M. Fabre will permit him “to differ from him on this last point” (p. 186). So do the Occultists; for though they claim a vast difference in the physiology and outward appearance of the five Races so far evolved, still they maintain that the present human species has descended from one and the same primitive stock, evolved from the Divine Men—our common ancestors and progenitors.

1744.

Loc. cit., 15, 18.

1745.

Ibid., 16.

1746.

Op. cit., 8-10.

1747.

“The flints of Thenay bear unmistakable trace of the work of human hands.” (G. de Mortillet, Promenades au Musèe de St. Germain, p. 76.)

1748.

Albert Gaudry, Les Enchainements du Monde Animal dans les Temps Géologiques, p. 240.

1749.

Speaking of the reindeer hunters of Périgord, Joly says that they “were of great height, athletic, with a strongly built skeleton.” (Man before Metals, p. 353.)

1750.

“On the shores of the lake of Beauce,” says the Abbé Bourgeois, “man lived in the midst of a fauna which completely disappeared (aceratherium, tapir, mastodon). With the fluviatile sands of Orléannais came the anthropomorphous monkey (pliopitliecus antiquus); therefore, later than man.” See Comptes Rendus of the “Prehistoric Congress” of 1867 at Paris.

1751.

De Quatrefages, The Human Species, p. 312.

1752.

“In making soundings in the slimy soil of the Nile Valley, two baked bricks were discovered, one at the depth of 20, the other at 24 yards. If we estimate the thickness of the annual deposit formed by the river at 8 inches a century [more careful calculations have shown no more than from three to five per century], we must assign to the first of these bricks an age of 12,000 years, and to the second that of 14,000 years. By means of analogous calculations, Burmeister supposes 72,000 years to have elapsed since the first appearance of man upon the soil of Egypt, and Draper attributes to the European man who witnessed the last glacial epoch, an antiquity of more than 250,000 years.” (Man before Metals, p. 183.) Egyptian Zodiacs show more than 75,000 years of observation! Note well also that Burmeister speaks only of the Delta population.

1753.

See Esoteric Buddhism, p. 66, Fifth Edition.

1754.

Or on what are now the British Isles, which were not yet detached from the main continent in those days. “The ancient inhabitant of Picardy could pass into Great Britain without crossing the Channel. The British Isles were united to Gaul by an isthmus which has since been submerged.” (Man before Metals, p. 184.)

1755.

He witnessed and remembered it too, as “the final disappearance of the largest continent [of Atlantis] was an event coïncident with the elevation of the Alps,” a Master writes (see Esoteric Buddhism p. 70). Pari passu, as one portion of the dry land of our hemisphere disappeared, some land of the new continent emerged from the seas. It is on this colossal cataclysm, which lasted during a period of 150,000 years, that traditions of all the “deluges” are built, the Jews constructing their version on an event which took place later, on Poseidonis.

1756.

“The Antiquity of the Human Race,” in Man before Metals, by M. Joly, p. 184.

1757.

The scientific “jury” disagreed, as usual; while de Quatrefages, de Mortillet, Worsaæ, Engelhardt, Waldemar, Schmidt, Capellini, Hamy, and Cartailhac, saw upon the flints the traces of human handiwork, Steenstrup, Virchow and Desor refused to do so. Still the majority, if we except some English Scientists, are for Bourgeois.

1758.

We take the following description from a scientific work. “The first of these animals [the alligator] designed with considerable skill, is no less than 250 ft. long.... The interior is formed of a heap of stones, over which the form has been moulded in fine stiff clay. The great serpent is represented with open mouth, in the act of swallowing an egg of which the diameter is 100 ft. in the thickest part; the body of the animal is wound in graceful curves and the tail is rolled into a spiral. The entire length of the animal is 1,100 ft. This work is unique ... and there is nothing on the old continent which offers any analogy to it.” Except, however, its symbolism of the Serpent (the Cycle of Time) swallowing the Egg (Kosmos).

1759.

It might be better, perhaps, for fact had we more “specialists” in Science and fewer “authorities” on universal questions. We have never heard that Humboldt gave authoritative and final decisions in the matter of polypi, or on the nature of an excrescence.

1760.

57,000 years is the date assigned by Dr. Dowler to the remains of the human skeleton, found buried beneath four ancient forests at New Orleans on the banks of the Mississippi river.

1761.

Murray says of the Mediterranean barbarians that they marvelled at the prowess of the Atlanteans. “Their physical strength was extraordinary [witness indeed their cyclopean buildings], the earth shaking sometimes under their tread. Whatever they did, was done speedily.... They were wise and communicated their wisdom to men” (Mythology, p. 4).

1762.

Art. by Dr. C. Carter Blake, 1871.

1763.

But the Magi of Persia were never Persians—not even Chaldæans. They came from a far-off land, the Orientalists being of opinion that the said land was Media. This may be so, but from what part of Media? To this we receive no answer.

1764.

Op. cit., p. 160.

1765.

Op. cit., pp. 3-13.

1766.

Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in Ancient Times, pp. 130, 131.

1767.

Bûmî haptâita, Yasna, xxxii. 3.

1768.

Cf., for instance, vol. i. p. 4, of the Pahlavi Translation; Bdh. xxi. 2, 3.

1769.

Footnote by Dârâb Dastur Peshotan Sanjânâ, B.A., the translator of Dr. Wilhelm Geiger's work on the Civilization of the Eastern Iranians.

1770.

Op. cit., pp. 130, 131.

1771.

Dr. Kenealy, in his Book of God, quotes Vallancey, who says: “I had not been a week landed in Ireland from Gibraltar, ... where I had studied Hebrew and Chaldaic under Jews of various countries ... when I heard a peasant girl say to a boor standing by her, ‘Feach an Maddin Nag’ (Behold the morning star), pointing to the planet Venus, the Maddina Nag of the Chaldæan” (pp. 162, 163).

1772.

Lib. iv.

1773.

There was a time when the whole world, the totality of mankind, had one religion, and when they were of “one lip.” “All the religions of the earth were at first one and emanated from one centre,” says Faber very truly.

1774.

Critias, translated by Davis, p. 415.

1775.

Plato's veracity has been so unwarrantably impeached by even such friendly critics as Professor Jowett, when the story of Atlantis has been discussed, that it seems well to cite the testimony of a specialist on the subject. It is sufficient to place mere literary cavillers in a very ridiculous position: “If our knowledge of Atlantis was more thorough, it would no doubt appear that in every instance wherein the people of Europe accord with the people of America, they were both in accord with the people of Atlantis.... It will be seen that in every case where Plato gives us any information in this respect as to Atlantis, we find this agreement to exist. It existed in architecture, sculpture, navigation, engraving, writing, an established priesthood, the mode of worship, agriculture, and the construction of roads and canals; and it is reasonable to suppose that the same correspondence extended down to all the minor details.” (Donnelly, Atlantis, p. 164. Twenty-fourth Ed.)

1776.

Christians ought not to object to this doctrine of the periodical destruction of continents by fire and water; for St. Peter speaks of the Earth “standing out of the water, and in the water, whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished, but [is now] reserved unto fire” (II. iii. 5-7. See also the Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers, p. 4, London, 1815).

1777.

See Hesiod's Theogony, 507-509, and Odyssey, i. 51-53.

1778.

Mèmoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, p. 176.

1779.

Æschylus, Prometheus Vinctus, 351, 429, etc.

1780.

iv. 184.

1781.

Pyth., i. 20; Decharme, op. cit., p. 315.

1782.

This does not mean that Atlas is the locality where it fell, for this took place in Northern and Central Asia; but that Atlas formed part of the Continent.

1783.

Had not Diocletian burned the Esoteric works of the Egyptians in a.d. 296, together with their books on Alchemy, “περὶ χυμείας ἀργύρου καὶ χρυσοῦ”; Cæsar 700,000 rolls at Alexandria; Leo Isaurus 300,000 at Constantinople (eighth cent.); and the Mahommedans all they could lay their sacrilegious hands on—the world might know to-day more of Atlantis than it does. For Alchemy had its birthplace in Atlantis during the Fourth Race, and had only its renaissance in Egypt.

1784.

Professor Max Müller's Lectures—On the Philosophy of Mythology—are before us. We read his citations of Heracleitus (460 b.c.), declaring that Homer deserved “to be ejected from public assemblies and flogged”; and of Xenophanes “holding Homer and Hesiod responsible for the popular superstitions of Greece,” and for ascribing “to the gods whatever is disgraceful and scandalous among men ... unlawful acts, such as theft, adultery, and fraud.” Finally the Oxford Professor quotes from Professor Jowett's translation of Plato, where the latter tells Adaimantus (Republic) that “the young man [in the state] should not be told that in committing the worst of crimes, he is far from doing anything outrageous, and that he may chastise his father [as Zeus did with Cronus] ... in any manner that he likes, and in this will only be following the example of the first and greatest of the gods.... In my opinion, these stories are not fit to be repeated.” To this Prof. Max Müller observes that: “the Greek religion was clearly a national and traditional religion, and, as such, it shared both the advantages and disadvantages of this form of religious belief”; while the Christian religion is “an historical and, to a great extent, an individual religion, and it possesses the advantage of an authorized codex and of a settled system of faith” (p. 349). So much the worse if it is “historical,” for surely Lot's incident with his daughters would only gain, were it “allegorical.”

1785.

ἁοιδῶν οἶδε δυστῆνοι λόγοι, Hercules Furens, 1346, Dindorf's Edition.

1786.

Critias, 421.

1787.

Neptune or Poseidon is the Hindû Idas-pati, identical with Nârâyana (the Mover on the Waters) or Vishnu, and like this Hindû God he is shown crossing the whole horizon in three steps. Idas-pati means also the “Master of the Waters.”

1788.

Bailly's assertion that the 9,000 years mentioned by the Egyptian priests do not represent “solar years” is groundless. Bailly knew nothing of Geology and its calculations; otherwise he would have spoken differently.

1789.

See Matsya Purâna, which places him among the seven Prajâpatis of the period.

1790.

Iliad, xxiv. 79.

1791.

Op. cit., p. 126.

1792.

The equivalent of this name is given in the original.

1793.

Deucalion is said to have brought the worship of Adonis and Osiris into Phœnicia. Now this worship is that of the Sun, lost and found again in its astronomical significance. It is only at the Pole that the Sun dies out for such a length of time as six months, for in latitude 68° it remains dead only for forty days, as in the festival of Osiris. The two worships were born in the north of Lemuria, or on that Continent of which Asia was a kind of broken prolongation, and which stretched up to the polar regions. This is well shown by de Gebelin's Allegories d'Orient, p. 246, and by Bailly; though neither Hercules nor Osiris are solar myths, save in one of their seven aspects.

1794.

The Hyperboreans, now regarded as mythical, are described (Herod., iv. 33-35; Pausanius, i. 31, 32; v. 7, 8; x. 5, 7, 8) as the beloved priests and servants of the Gods, and of Apollo chiefly.

1795.

The Cyclopes are not the only “one-eyed” representatives in tradition. The Arimaspes were a Scythian people, and were also credited with but one eye. (Géographie Ancienne, ii. 321.) It is they whom Apollo destroyed with his shafts.

1796.

Ulysses was wrecked on the isle of Ææa, where Circe changed all his companions into pigs for their voluptuousness; and after that he was thrown into Ogygia, the island of Calypso, where for some seven years he lived with the nymph in illicit connection. Now Calypso was a daughter of Atlas (Odys., xii.), and all the traditional ancient versions, when speaking of the Isle of Ogygia, say that it was very distant from Greece, and right in the middle of the Ocean; thus identifying it with Atlantis.

1797.

Hygin., Astron. Poétique, ii. 15.

1798.

Nineteenth Century, July, 1887.

1799.

Diod. Sic., ii. 307.

1800.

To make a difference between Lemuria and Atlantis, the ancient writers referred to the latter as the Northern or Hyperborean Atlantis, and to the former as the Southern. Thus Apollodorus says (Mythology, Book ii): “The golden apples carried away by Hercules are not, as some think, in Lybia; they are in the Hyperborean Atlantis.” The Greeks naturalized all the Gods they borrowed and made Hellenes of them, and the moderns helped them. Thus also the Mythologists have tried to make of Eridanus the river Po, in Italy. In the myth of Phaeton it is said that at his death his sisters dropped hot tears which fell into Eridanus and were changed into amber! Now amber is found only in the northern seas, in the Baltic. Phaeton, meeting with his death while carrying heat to the frozen stars of the boreal regions, awakening at the Pole the Dragon made rigid by cold, and being hurled down into the Eridanus, is an allegory referring directly to the changes of climate in those distant times when, from a frigid zone, the polar lands had become a country with a moderate and warm climate. The usurper of the functions of the Sun, Phaeton, being hurled into the Eridanus by Jupiter's thunderbolt, is an allusion to the second change that took place in those regions when, once more, the land where “the magnolia blossomed” became the desolate forbidding land of the farthest north and eternal ice. This allegory covers then the events of two Pralayas; and if well understood, ought to be a demonstration of the enormous antiquity of the human races.

1801.

Iliad, xvii. 431-453.

1802.

Ibid., 322-336.

1803.

See Apollodorus for this number.

1804.

See “The Sons of God and the Sacred Island.”

1805.

So occult and mystic is one of the aspects of Latona that she is made to reappear even in Revelation (xii), as the woman clothed with the Sun (Apollo) and the Moon (Diana) under her feet, who being with child “cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.” A great red Dragon stands before the woman ready to devour the child. She brings forth the man-child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron, and who was caught unto the throne of God—the Sun. The woman fled to the wilderness still pursued by the Dragon, who flees again, and casts out of his mouth water as a flood, when the Earth helped the woman and swallowed the flood; and the Dragon went to make war with the remnant of her seed who kept the commandments of God. (See xii. 1, 17.) Anyone who reads the allegory of Latona pursued by the revenge of jealous Juno, will recognize the identity of the two versions. Juno sends Python, the Dragon, to persecute and destroy Latona and devour her babe. The latter is Apollo, the Sun, for the man-child of Revelation, “who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron” is surely not the meek “Son of God,” Jesus, but the physical Sun, “who rules all nations”; the Dragon being the North Pole, gradually chasing the early Lemurians from the lands which became more and more Hyperborean and unfit to be inhabited by those who were fast developing into physical men, for they now had to deal with the climatic variations. The Dragon will not allow Latona “to bring forth”—the Sun to appear. “She is driven from heaven, and finds no place where she can bring forth,” until Neptune, the Ocean, in pity, makes immovable the floating isle of Delos—the nymph Asteria, hitherto hiding from Jupiter under the waves of the Ocean—on which Latona finds refuge, and where the bright God Delius is born, the God, who no sooner appears than he kills Python, the cold and frost of the Arctic region, in whose deadly coils all life becomes extinct. In other words, Latona-Lemuria is transformed into Niobe-Atlantis, over which her son Apollo, or the Sun, reigns—with an iron rod, truly, since Herodotus makes the Atlantes curse his too great heat. This allegory is reproduced in its other mystic meaning (another of the seven keys) in the just cited chapter of Revelation. Latona became a powerful Goddess indeed, and saw her son receive worship (solar worship) in almost every fane of antiquity. In his Occult aspect Apollo is patron of number Seven. He is born on the seventh of the month, and the swans of Myorica swim seven times round Delos singing that event; he is given seven chords to his Lyre—the seven rays of the Sun and the seven forces of Nature. But this is only in the astronomical meaning, whereas the above is purely geological.