«Тайная Доктрина. Том 2: Антропогенезис»

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.

Ментальный барьер между человеком и обезьяной, охарактеризованный Хаксли как «огромная пропасть, расстояние практически неизмеримое» (! !), действительно, сам по себе является решающим. Конечно, он представляет собой постоянную загадку для материалиста, который полагается на хрупкий тростник «естественного отбора». Физиологические различия между Человеком и Обезьянами в действительности — несмотря на любопытную общность некоторых черт — столь же поразительны. Говорит доктор Швейнфурт, один из самых осторожных и опытных натуралистов:

«В наше время нет животных в творении, которые привлекли бы большее внимание научного исследователя природы, чем эти великие четверорукие [антропоиды], которые отмечены таким поразительным сходством с человеческой формой, что это оправдало эпитет антропоморфных... Но все исследования в настоящее время лишь приводят человеческий интеллект к признанию своей недостаточности; и нигде осторожность не должна быть более пропагандируема, нигде преждевременное суждение не должно быть более порицаемо, чем в попытке перекинуть мост через таинственную пропасть, которая отделяет человека от зверя». («Heart of Africa», I, 520. Изд. 1873 г.)

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.

«В этот период», — пишет Дарвин, — «артерии проходят дугообразными ветвями, как будто для того, чтобы нести кровь к жабрам, которые не присутствуют у высших позвоночных, хотя щели на стороне шеи все еще остаются, отмечая их прежнее [?] положение».

Примечательно, что, хотя жаберные щели абсолютно бесполезны для всех, кроме амфибий, рыб и т. д., их появление регулярно отмечается в эмбриональном развитии позвоночных. Даже дети иногда рождаются с отверстием в шее, соответствующим одной из щелей.

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.

Мы признаемся, что не можем видеть никаких веских причин для позитивного утверждения г-на Э. Клодда в «Knowledge». Говоря о людях неолитических времен, «о которых г-н Грант Аллен дал... яркий и точный набросок» и которые являются «прямыми предками народов, чьи остатки все еще скрываются в отдаленных уголках Европы, где они были вытеснены или выброшены на берег», он добавляет: «но людей палеолитических времен нельзя отождествить ни с одной существующей расой; они были дикарями более деградировавшего типа, чем любые ныне существующие; высокие, но едва прямоходящие, с короткими ногами и искривленными коленями, с прогнатическими, то есть выступающими обезьяноподобными челюстями, и маленьким мозгом. Откуда они пришли, мы не можем сказать, и их «могилы не знает никто по сей день»».

Помимо возможности того, что могут быть люди, которые знают, откуда они пришли и как погибли — неправда, что все палеолитические люди или их ископаемые останки найдены с «маленьким мозгом». Самый старый череп из всех найденных до сих пор, «череп неандертальца», имеет средний объем, и г-н Хаксли был вынужден признать, что это вовсе не реальное приближение к черепу «недостающего звена». В Индии есть племена аборигенов, чей мозг гораздо меньше и ближе к мозгу обезьяны, чем любой из найденных до сих пор среди черепов палеолитического человека.

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.

Поскольку ни один атом во всем Космосе не лишен жизни и сознания, насколько же тогда его могучие глобусы должны быть наполнены и тем, и другим — хотя они остаются запечатанными книгами для нас, людей, которые едва могут проникнуть даже в сознание форм жизни, наиболее близких к нам?

Мы не знаем самих себя, тогда как мы можем, если мы никогда не были обучены и посвящены, воображать, что можем проникнуть в сознание мельчайших из животных вокруг нас?

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.

Те, кто склонен насмехаться над той доктриной Эзотерической Этнологии, которая предполагает существование Людей во Вторичном периоде, сделают хорошо, если заметят тот факт, что один из самых выдающихся антропологов нашего времени, М. де Катрфаж, серьезно аргументирует в этом направлении. Он пишет: «Таким образом, нет ничего невозможного в идее, что он [человек]... должен был появиться на земном шаре с первыми представителями типа, к которому он принадлежит по своей организации». («The Human Species», стр. 153.) Это утверждение наиболее близко приближается к нашему фундаментальному утверждению, что человек предшествовал другим млекопитающим.

Профессор Лефевр признает, что «труды Буше де Перта, Ларте, Кристи, Буржуа, Денойе, Брока, Де Мортилье, Ами, Годри, Капеллини и сотни других преодолели все сомнения и ясно установили прогрессивное развитие человеческого организма и индустрии с миоценовой эпохи третичного периода». («Philosophy Historical and Critical», ч. II, стр. 499, гл. II, «Об органической эволюции». «Библиотека современной науки».) Почему он отвергает возможность человека Вторичного периода? Просто потому, что он вовлечен в сети дарвиновской антропологии. «Происхождение человека связано с происхождением высших млекопитающих»; он появился «только с последними типами своего класса»! Это не аргумент, а догматизм. Теория никогда не может отлучить факт. Должно ли всё уступить место простым рабочим гипотезам западных эволюционистов? Конечно, нет!

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.