Họp Thông Thiên Học ngày 12 tháng 3 năm 2011
[3/12/2011 6:01:23 PM] *** Conference call ***
[3/12/2011 6:08:41 PM] Thuan Thi Do: 31. THE ANIMALS SEPARATED THE FIRST (into
mate and female) (b) . . . .
(a) Vertebrates, and after that mammalians. Before that the animals were also
ethereal proto-organisms, just as man was.
(b) The fact of former hermaphrodite mammals and the subsequent separation of
sexes is now indisputable, even from the stand-point of Biology. As Prof. Oscar
Schmidt, an avowed Darwinist, shows: "Use and disuse combined with selection
elucidate (?) the separation of the sexes, and the existence, totally
incomprehensible, of rudimentary sexual organs. In the Vertebrata especially,
each sex possesses such distinct traces of the reproductive apparatus
characteristic of the other, that even antiquity assumed hermaphroditism as a
natural primeval form of mankind. . . . The tenacity with which the rudiments of
sexual organs are inherited is remarkable. In the class of mammals, actual
hermaphroditism is unheard of, although through the whole period of their
development they drag along with them these residues born by their unknown
ancestry, no one can say how long ago."*
===================================
[3/12/2011 6:10:24 PM] Van Atman: 32. And those which had no spark (the
“narrow-brained”†) took huge she-animals unto them (a). They begat upon them
dumb races. Dumb they were (the “narrow-brained”) themselves. But their tongues
untied (b). The tongues of their progeny remained still. Monsters they bred. A
race of crooked, red-hair-covered monsters, going on all fours.‡ A dumb race, to
keep the shame untold.§
(a) The animals “separated the first,” says Stanza 31. Bear in mind that at that
period men were different, even physiologically, from what
Footnote(s) ———————————————
* “Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism,” pp. 186-7. The “Unknown Ancestry”
referred to are the primeval astral prototypes. Cf. § II., p. 260 (a).
† See verse 24.
‡ These “animals,” or monsters, are not the anthropoid or any other apes, but
verily what the Anthropologists might call the “missing link,” the primitive
lower man; see infra.
§ The shame of their animal origin which our modern scientists would emphasize
if they could.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 2, Page 185 THE SIN OF THE MINDLESS MEN.
they are now, having passed the middle point of the Fifth Race. We are not told
what the “huge she-animals” were; but they certainly were as different from any
we know now, as were the men.
This was the first physical “fall into matter” of some of the then existing and
lower races. Bear in mind Stanza 24. The “Sons of Wisdom” had spurned the early
Third Race, i.e., the non-developed, and are shown incarnating in, and thereby
endowing with intellect, the later Third Race. Thus the sin of the brainless or
“mindless” Races, who had no “spark” and were irresponsible, fell upon those who
failed to do by them their Karmic duty.
(b) See later on concerning the beginning of human speech.
———————
What may be the Objections to the Foregoing.
Thus Occultism rejects the idea that Nature developed man from the ape, or even
from an ancestor common to both, but traces, on the contrary, some of the most
anthropoid species to the Third Race man of the early Atlantean period. As this
proposition will be maintained and defended elsewhere, a few words more are all
that are needed at present. For greater clearness, however, we shall repeat in
brief what was said previously in Book I., Stanza VI.
Our teachings show that, while it is quite correct to say that nature had built,
at one time, around the human astral form an ape-like external shape, yet it is
as correct that this shape was no more that of the “missing link,” than were the
coverings of that astral form, during the course of its natural evolution
through all the kingdoms of nature. Nor was it, as shown in the proper place, on
this Fourth Round planet that such evolution took place, but only during the
First, Second, and Third Rounds, when man was, in turn, “a stone, a plant, and
an animal” until he became what he was in the First Root-Race of present
humanity. The real line of evolution differs from the Darwinian, and the two
systems are irreconcilable, except when the latter is divorced from the dogma of
“Natural Selection” and the like. Indeed, between the Monera of Haeckel and the
Sarisripa of Manu, there lies an impassable chasm in the shape of the Jiva; for
the “human” Monad, whether immetallized in the stone-atom, or invegetallized in
the plant, or inanimalized in the animal, is still and ever a divine, hence also
a human Monad. It ceases to be human only when it becomes absolutely divine. The
terms “mineral,” “vegetable” and “animal” monad are meant to create a
superficial distinction: there is no such thing as a Monad (jiva)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 2, Page 186 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
other than divine, and consequently having been, or having to become, human. And
the latter term has to remain meaningless unless the difference is well
understood. The Monad is a drop out of the shoreless Ocean beyond, or, to be
correct, within the plane of primeval differentiation. It is divine in its
higher and human in its lower condition — the adjectives “higher” and “lower”
being used for lack of better words — and a monad it remains at all times, save
in the Nirvanic state, under whatever conditions, or whatever external forms. As
the Logos reflects the Universe in the Divine Mind, and the manifested Universe
reflects itself in each of its Monads, as Leibnitz put it, repeating an Eastern
teaching, so the Monad has, during the cycle of its incarnations, to reflect in
itself every root-form of each kingdom. Therefore, the Kabalists say correctly
that “Man becomes a stone, a plant, an animal, a man, a Spirit, and finally God.
Thus accomplishing his cycle or circuit and returning to the point from which he
had started as the heavenly Man.” But by “Man” the divine Monad is meant, and
not the thinking Entity, much less his physical body. While rejecting the
immortal Soul, the men of Science now try to trace the latter through a series
of animal forms from the lowest to the highest; whereas, in truth, all the
present fauna are the descendants of those primordial monsters of which the
Stanzas speak. The animals — the creeping beasts and those in the waters that
preceded man in this Fourth Round, as well as those contemporary with the Third
Race, and again the mammalia that are posterior to the Third and Fourth Races —
all are either directly or indirectly the mutual and correlative product
(physically) of man. It is correct to say that the man of this Manvantara, i.e.,
during the three preceding Rounds, has passed through all the kingdoms of
nature. That he was “a stone, a plant, an animal.” But (a) these stones, plants,
and animals were the prototypes, the filmy presentments of those of the Fourth
Round; and (b) even those at the beginning of the Fourth Round were the astral
shadows of the present, as the Occultists express it. And finally the forms and
genera of neither man, animal, nor plant were what they became later. Thus the
astral prototypes of the lower beings of the animal kingdom of the Fourth Round,
which preceded (the chhayas of) Men, were the consolidated, though still very
ethereal sheaths of the still more ethereal forms or models produced at the
close of the Third Round on Globe D.* “Produced from the residue of the
substance matter; from dead bodies of men and (other extinct) animals of the
wheel before,” or the previous Third Round — as Stanza 24 tells us. Hence, while
the nondescript “animals”
Footnote(s) ———————————————
* Vide “Esoteric Buddhism.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 2, Page 187 THE DARWINISTS MISTAKEN.
that preceded the astral man at the beginning of this life-cycle on our Earth
were still, so to speak, the progeny of the man of the Third Round, the
mammalians of this Round owe their existence, in a great measure, to man again.
Moreover, the “ancestor” of the present anthropoid animal, the ape, is the
direct production of the yet mindless Man, who desecrated his human dignity by
putting himself physically on the level of an animal.
The above accounts for some of the alleged physiological proofs, brought forward
by the anthropologists as a demonstration of the descent of man from the
animals.
The point most insisted upon by the Evolutionists is that, “The history of the
embryo is an epitome of that of the race.” That “every organism, in its
development from the egg, runs through a series of forms, through which, in like
succession, its ancestors have passed in the long course of Earth’s history.*
The history of the embryo . . . . is a picture in little, and outline of that of
the race. This conception forms the gist of our fundamental biogenetic law,
which we are obliged to place at the head of the study of the fundamental law of
organic development.Ӡ
This modern theory was known as a fact to, and far more philosophically
expressed by, the Sages and Occultists from the remotest ages. A passage from
“Isis Unveiled” may here be cited to furnish a few points of comparison. In Vol.
I., pp. 388-9, it was asked why, with all their great learning, physiologists
were unable to explain teratological phenomena? Any anatomist who has made the
development and growth of the embryo “a subject of special study,” can tell,
without much brain-work, what daily experience and the evidence of his own eyes
show him, viz., that up to a certain period, the human embryo is a facsimile of
a young batrachian in its first remove from the spawn — a tadpole. But no
physiologist or anatomist seems to have had the idea of applying to the
development of the human being — from the first
Footnote(s) ———————————————
* “A very strong argument in favour of variability is supplied by the science of
Embryology. Is not a man in the uterus . . . . . a simple cell, a vegetable with
three or four leaflets, a tadpole with branchiae, a mammal with a tail, lastly a
primate (?) and a biped? It is scarcely possible not to recognise in the
embryonic evolution a rapid sketch, a faithful summary, of the entire organic
series.” (Lefevre, Philosophy, p. 484).
The summary alluded to is, however, only that of the store of types hoarded up
in man, the microcosm. This simple explanation meets all such objections, as the
presence of the rudimentary tail in the foetus — a fact triumphantly paraded by
Haeckel and Darwin as conclusively in favour of the Ape-Ancestor theory. It may
also be pointed out that the presence of a vegetable with leaflets in the
embryonic stages is not explained on ordinary evolutionist principles.
Darwinists have not traced man through the vegetable, but Occultists have. Why
then this feature in the embryo, and how do the former explain it?
† “The Proofs of Evolution,” a lecture by Haeckel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 2, Page 188 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
instant of its physical appearance as a germ to its ultimate formation and birth
— the Pythagorean esoteric doctrine of metempsychosis, so erroneously
interpreted by critics. The meaning of the axiom: “A stone becomes a plant; a
plant, a beast; a beast, a man, etc.” was mentioned in another place in relation
to the spiritual and physical evolution of men on this Earth. We will now add a
few more words to make the matter clearer.
What is the primitive shape of the future man? A grain, a corpuscle, say some
physiologists; a molecule, an ovum of the ovum, say others. If it could be
analysed — by the microscope or otherwise — of what ought we to expect to find
it composed? Analogically, we should say, of a nucleus of inorganic matter,
deposited from the circulation at the germinating point, and united with a
deposit of organic matter. In other words, this infinitesimal nucleus of the
future man is composed of the same elements as a stone — of the same elements as
the Earth, which the man is destined to inhabit. Moses is cited by the Kabalists
as authority for the remark that it required earth and water to make a living
being, and thus it may be said that man first appears as a stone.
At the end of three or four weeks the ovum has assumed a plant-like appearance,
one extremity having become spheroidal and the other tapering like a carrot.
Upon dissection it is found to be composed, like an onion, of very delicate
laminae or coats, enclosing a liquid. The laminae approach each other at the
lower end, and the embryo hangs from the root of the umbilicus almost like the
fruit from the bough. The stone has now become changed, by “metempsychosis,”
into a plant. Then the embryonic creature begins to shoot out, from the inside
outward, its limbs, and develops its features. The eyes are visible as two black
dots; the ears, nose, and mouth form depressions, like the points of a
pineapple, before they begin to project. The embryo develops into an animal-like
foetus — the shape of a tadpole — and, like an amphibious reptile, lives in
water and develops from it. Its Monad has not yet become either human or
immortal, for the Kabalists tell us that this only occurs at the “fourth hour.”
One by one the foetus assumes the characteristics of the human being, the first
flutter of the immortal breath passes through its being; it moves; and the
divine essence settles in the infant frame, which it will inhabit until the
moment of physical death, when man becomes a spirit.
This mysterious process of a nine-months’ formation, the Kabalists call the
completion of the “individual cycle of evolution.” As the foetus develops amidst
the liquor amnii in the womb, so the Earths germinate in the universal ether, or
astral fluid, in the womb of the Universe. These cosmic children, like their
pigmy inhabitants, are at first nuclei; then ovules; then gradually mature; and
becoming
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 2, Page 189 NATURALISTS INVENTING LINKS.
mothers, in their turn, develop mineral, vegetable, animal, and human forms.
From centre to circumference, from the imperceptible vesicle to the uttermost
conceivable bounds of the Kosmos, those glorious thinkers, the Occultists, trace
cycle merging into cycle, containing and contained in an endless series. The
embryo evolving in its pre-natal sphere, the individual in his family, the
family in the state, the state in mankind, the Earth in our system, that system
in its central universe, the universe in the Kosmos, and the Kosmos in the one
cause . . . thus runs their philosophy of evolution, differing as we see, from
that of Haeckel: —
“All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and (Parabrahm) the soul . . .”
These are the proofs of Occultism, and they are rejected by Science. But how is
the chasm between the mind of man and animal to be bridged in this case? How, if
the anthropoid and Homo primigenius had, argumenti gratia, a common ancestor (in
the way modern speculation puts it), did the two groups diverge so widely from
one another as regards mental capacity? True, the Occultist may be told that in
every case Occultism does what Science repeats; it gives a common ancestor to
ape and man, since it makes the former issue from primeval man. Ay, but that
“primeval man” was man only in external form. He was mindless and soulless at
the time he begot, with a female animal monster, the forefather of a series of
apes. This speculation — if speculation it be — is at least logical, and fills
the chasm between the mind of man and animal. Thus it accounts for and explains
the hitherto unaccountable and inexplicable. The fact that, in the present stage
of evolution, Science is almost certain that no issue can follow from the union
of man and animal, is considered and explained elsewhere.
Now what is the fundamental difference between the accepted (or nearly so)
conclusions, as enunciated in “The Pedigree of Man,” viz., that man and ape have
a common ancestor; and the teachings of Occultism, which deny this conclusion
and accept the fact that all things and all living beings have originated from
one common source? Materialistic science makes man evolve gradually to what he
is now, and, starting from the first protoplasmic speck called Moneron (which we
are told has, like the rest, “originated in the course of immeasurable ages from
a few, or from one simple, spontaneously arising original form, that has obeyed
one law of evolution”), pass through “unknown and unknowable” types up to the
ape, and thence to the human being. Where the transitional shapes are
discoverable we are not told; for the simple reason that no “missing links”
between man and the apes have ever yet been found, though this fact in no way
prevents men like Haeckel from inventing them ad libitum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 2, Page 190 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
Nor will they ever be met with; simply, again, because that link which unites
man with his real ancestry is searched for on the objective plane and in the
material world of forms, whereas it is safely hidden from the microscope and
dissecting knife within the animal tabernacle of man himself. We repeat what we
have said in Isis Unveiled: —
“. . . . . . . All things had their origin in spirit — evolution having
originally begun from above and proceeded downward, instead of the reverse, as
taught in the Darwinian theory. In other words, there has been a gradual
materialization of forms until a fixed ultimate of debasement is reached. This
point is that at which the doctrine of modern evolution enters into the arena of
speculative hypothesis. Arrived at this period we will find it easier to
understand Haeckel’s Anthropogeny, which traces the pedigree of man ‘from its
protoplasmic root, sodden in the mud of seas which existed before the oldest of
the fossiliferous rocks were deposited,’ according to Professor Huxley’s
exposition. We may believe the man (of the Third Round) evolved ‘by gradual
modification of an (astral) mammal of ape-like organization’ still easier when
we remember that (though in a more condensed and less elegant, but still as
comprehensible, phraseology) the same theory was said by Berosus to have been
taught many thousands of years before his time by the man-fish Oannes or Dagon,
the semi-demon of Babylonia* (though on somewhat modified lines).
“But what lies back of the Darwinian line of descent? So far as he is concerned
nothing but ‘unverifiable hypotheses.’ For, as he puts it, he views all beings
‘as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first
bed of the Silurian system was deposited.’† He does not attempt to show us who
these ‘few beings’ were. But it answers our purpose quite as well, for, in the
admission of their existence at all, resort to the ancients for corroboration
and elaboration of the idea receives the stamp of scientific approbation. . . .
”
Truly, as also said in our first work: “If we accept Darwin’s theory of the
development of species, we find that his starting-point is placed in front of an
open door. We are at liberty with him, to either remain within, or cross the
threshold, beyond which lies the limitless and the incomprehensible, or rather
the Unutterable. If our mortal language is inadequate to express what our spirit
dimly foresees in the great ‘Beyond’ — while on this earth — it must realize it
at some point in the timeless Eternity.” But what lies “beyond” Haeckel’s
theory? Why Bathybius Haeckelii, and no more!
A further answer is given in Part III. Addenda.
[3/12/2011 6:14:18 PM] Thuan Thi Do: 31. . . . . They (the animals) began to
breed. The two-fold man (then) separated also. He (man), said “Let us as they;
let us unite and make creatures.” They did. . . .
32. And those which had no spark (the “narrow-brained”†) took huge she-animals
unto them (a). They begat upon them dumb races. Dumb they were (the
“narrow-brained”) themselves. But their tongues untied (b). The tongues of their
progeny remained still. Monsters they bred. A race of crooked, red-hair-covered
monsters, going on all fours.‡ A dumb race, to keep the shame untold.§
(a) The animals “separated the first,” says Stanza 31. Bear in mind that at that
period men were different, even physiologically, from what they are now, having
passed the middle point of the Fifth Race. We are not told what the “huge
she-animals” were; but they certainly were as different from any we know now, as
were the men.
This was the first physical “fall into matter” of some of the then existing and
lower races. Bear in mind Stanza 24. The “Sons of Wisdom” had spurned the early
Third Race, i.e., the non-developed, and are shown incarnating in, and thereby
endowing with intellect, the later Third Race. Thus the sin of the brainless or
“mindless” Races, who had no “spark” and were irresponsible, fell upon those who
failed to do by them their Karmic duty.
What may be the Objections to the Foregoing.
Thus Occultism rejects the idea that Nature developed man from the ape, or even
from an ancestor common to both, but traces, on the contrary, some of the most
anthropoid species to the Third Race man of the early Atlantean period. As this
proposition will be maintained and defended elsewhere, a few words more are all
that are needed at present. For greater clearness, however, we shall repeat in
brief what was said previously in Book I., Stanza VI.
Our teachings show that, while it is quite correct to say that nature had built,
at one time, around the human astral form an ape-like external shape, yet it is
as correct that this shape was no more that of the “missing link,” than were the
coverings of that astral form, during the course of its natural evolution
through all the kingdoms of nature. Nor was it, as shown in the proper place, on
this Fourth Round planet that such evolution took place, but only during the
First, Second, and Third Rounds, when man was, in turn, “a stone, a plant, and
an animal” until he became what he was in the First Root-Race of present
humanity. The real line of evolution differs from the Darwinian, and the two
systems are irreconcilable, except when the latter is divorced from the dogma of
“Natural Selection” and the like. Indeed, between the Monera of Haeckel and the
Sarisripa of Manu, there lies an impassable chasm in the shape of the Jiva; for
the “human” Monad, whether immetallized in the stone-atom, or invegetallized in
the plant, or inanimalized in the animal, is still and ever a divine, hence also
a human Monad. It ceases to be human only when it becomes absolutely divine. The
terms “mineral,” “vegetable” and “animal” monad are meant to create a
superficial distinction: there is no such thing as a Monad (jiva) other than
divine, and consequently having been, or having to become, human. And the latter
term has to remain meaningless unless the difference is well understood. The
Monad is a drop out of the shoreless Ocean beyond, or, to be correct, within the
plane of primeval differentiation. It is divine in its higher and human in its
lower condition — the adjectives “higher” and “lower” being used for lack of
better words — and a monad it remains at all times, save in the Nirvanic state,
under whatever conditions, or whatever external forms. As the Logos reflects the
Universe in the Divine Mind, and the manifested Universe reflects itself in each
of its Monads, as Leibnitz put it, repeating an Eastern teaching, so the Monad
has, during the cycle of its incarnations, to reflect in itself every root-form
of each kingdom. Therefore, the Kabalists say correctly that “Man becomes a
stone, a plant, an animal, a man, a Spirit, and finally God. Thus accomplishing
his cycle or circuit and returning to the point from which he had started as the
heavenly Man.” But by “Man” the divine Monad is meant, and not the thinking
Entity, much less his physical body. While rejecting the immortal Soul, the men
of Science now try to trace the latter through a series of animal forms from the
lowest to the highest; whereas, in truth, all the present fauna are the
descendants of those primordial monsters of which the Stanzas speak. The animals
— the creeping beasts and those in the waters that preceded man in this Fourth
Round, as well as those contemporary with the Third Race, and again the mammalia
that are posterior to the Third and Fourth Races — all are either directly or
indirectly the mutual and correlative product (physically) of man. It is correct
to say that the man of this Manvantara, i.e., during the three preceding Rounds,
has passed through all the kingdoms of nature. That he was “a stone, a plant, an
animal.” But (a) these stones, plants, and animals were the prototypes, the
filmy presentments of those of the Fourth Round; and (b) even those at the
beginning of the Fourth Round were the astral shadows of the present, as the
Occultists express it. And finally the forms and genera of neither man, animal,
nor plant were what they became later. Thus the astral prototypes of the lower
beings of the animal kingdom of the Fourth Round, which preceded (the chhayas
of) Men, were the consolidated, though still very ethereal sheaths of the still
more ethereal forms or models produced at the close of the Third Round on Globe
D.* “Produced from the residue of the substance matter; from dead bodies of men
and (other extinct) animals of the wheel before,” or the previous Third Round —
as Stanza 24 tells us. Hence, while the nondescript “animals” that preceded the
astral man at the beginning of this life-cycle on our Earth were still, so to
speak, the progeny of the man of the Third Round, the mammalians of this Round
owe their existence, in a great measure, to man again. Moreover, the “ancestor”
of the present anthropoid animal, the ape, is the direct production of the yet
mindless Man, who desecrated his human dignity by putting himself physically on
the level of an animal.
The above accounts for some of the alleged physiological proofs, brought forward
by the anthropologists as a demonstration of the descent of man from the
animals.
The point most insisted upon by the Evolutionists is that, “The history of the
embryo is an epitome of that of the race.” That “every organism, in its
development from the egg, runs through a series of forms, through which, in like
succession, its ancestors have passed in the long course of Earth’s history.*
The history of the embryo . . . . is a picture in little, and outline of that of
the race. This conception forms the gist of our fundamental biogenetic law,
which we are obliged to place at the head of the study of the fundamental law of
organic development.Ӡ
This modern theory was known as a fact to, and far more philosophically
expressed by, the Sages and Occultists from the remotest ages. A passage from
“Isis Unveiled” may here be cited to furnish a few points of comparison. In Vol.
I., pp. 388-9, it was asked why, with all their great learning, physiologists
were unable to explain teratological phenomena? Any anatomist who has made the
development and growth of the embryo “a subject of special study,” can tell,
without much brain-work, what daily experience and the evidence of his own eyes
show him, viz., that up to a certain period, the human embryo is a facsimile of
a young batrachian in its first remove from the spawn — a tadpole. But no
physiologist or anatomist seems to have had the idea of applying to the
development of the human being — from the first
instant of its physical appearance as a germ to its ultimate formation and birth
— the Pythagorean esoteric doctrine of metempsychosis, so erroneously
interpreted by critics. The meaning of the axiom: “A stone becomes a plant; a
plant, a beast; a beast, a man, etc.” was mentioned in another place in relation
to the spiritual and physical evolution of men on this Earth. We will now add a
few more words to make the matter clearer.
What is the primitive shape of the future man? A grain, a corpuscle, say some
physiologists; a molecule, an ovum of the ovum, say others. If it could be
analysed — by the microscope or otherwise — of what ought we to expect to find
it composed? Analogically, we should say, of a nucleus of inorganic matter,
deposited from the circulation at the germinating point, and united with a
deposit of organic matter. In other words, this infinitesimal nucleus of the
future man is composed of the same elements as a stone — of the same elements as
the Earth, which the man is destined to inhabit. Moses is cited by the Kabalists
as authority for the remark that it required earth and water to make a living
being, and thus it may be said that man first appears as a stone.
At the end of three or four weeks the ovum has assumed a plant-like appearance,
one extremity having become spheroidal and the other tapering like a carrot.
Upon dissection it is found to be composed, like an onion, of very delicate
laminae or coats, enclosing a liquid. The laminae approach each other at the
lower end, and the embryo hangs from the root of the umbilicus almost like the
fruit from the bough. The stone has now become changed, by “metempsychosis,”
into a plant. Then the embryonic creature begins to shoot out, from the inside
outward, its limbs, and develops its features. The eyes are visible as two black
dots; the ears, nose, and mouth form depressions, like the points of a
pineapple, before they begin to project. The embryo develops into an animal-like
foetus — the shape of a tadpole — and, like an amphibious reptile, lives in
water and develops from it. Its Monad has not yet become either human or
immortal, for the Kabalists tell us that this only occurs at the “fourth hour.”
One by one the foetus assumes the characteristics of the human being, the first
flutter of the immortal breath passes through its being; it moves; and the
divine essence settles in the infant frame, which it will inhabit until the
moment of physical death, when man becomes a spirit.
This mysterious process of a nine-months’ formation, the Kabalists call the
completion of the “individual cycle of evolution.” As the foetus develops amidst
the liquor amnii in the womb, so the Earths germinate in the universal ether, or
astral fluid, in the womb of the Universe. These cosmic children, like their
pigmy inhabitants, are at first nuclei; then ovules; then gradually mature; and
becoming mothers, in their turn, develop mineral, vegetable, animal, and human
forms. From centre to circumference, from the imperceptible vesicle to the
uttermost conceivable bounds of the Kosmos, those glorious thinkers, the
Occultists, trace cycle merging into cycle, containing and contained in an
endless series. The embryo evolving in its pre-natal sphere, the individual in
his family, the family in the state, the state in mankind, the Earth in our
system, that system in its central universe, the universe in the Kosmos, and the
Kosmos in the one cause . . . thus runs their philosophy of evolution, differing
as we see, from that of Haeckel: —
“All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and (Parabrahm) the soul . . .”
These are the proofs of Occultism, and they are rejected by Science. But how is
the chasm between the mind of man and animal to be bridged in this case? How, if
the anthropoid and Homo primigenius had, argumenti gratia, a common ancestor (in
the way modern speculation puts it), did the two groups diverge so widely from
one another as regards mental capacity? True, the Occultist may be told that in
every case Occultism does what Science repeats; it gives a common ancestor to
ape and man, since it makes the former issue from primeval man. Ay, but that
“primeval man” was man only in external form. He was mindless and soulless at
the time he begot, with a female animal monster, the forefather of a series of
apes. This speculation — if speculation it be — is at least logical, and fills
the chasm between the mind of man and animal. Thus it accounts for and explains
the hitherto unaccountable and inexplicable. The fact that, in the present stage
of evolution, Science is almost certain that no issue can follow from the union
of man and animal, is considered and explained elsewhere.
Now what is the fundamental difference between the accepted (or nearly so)
conclusions, as enunciated in “The Pedigree of Man,” viz., that man and ape have
a common ancestor; and the teachings of Occultism, which deny this conclusion
and accept the fact that all things and all living beings have originated from
one common source? Materialistic science makes man evolve gradually to what he
is now, and, starting from the first protoplasmic speck called Moneron (which we
are told has, like the rest, “originated in the course of immeasurable ages from
a few, or from one simple, spontaneously arising original form, that has obeyed
one law of evolution”), pass through “unknown and unknowable” types up to the
ape, and thence to the human being. Where the transitional shapes are
discoverable we are not told; for the simple reason that no “missing links”
between man and the apes have ever yet been found, though this fact in no way
prevents men like Haeckel from inventing them ad libitum.
Nor will they ever be met with; simply, again, because that link which unites
man with his real ancestry is searched for on the objective plane and in the
material world of forms, whereas it is safely hidden from the microscope and
dissecting knife within the animal tabernacle of man himself. We repeat what we
have said in Isis Unveiled: —
“. . . . . . . All things had their origin in spirit — evolution having
originally begun from above and proceeded downward, instead of the reverse, as
taught in the Darwinian theory. In other words, there has been a gradual
materialization of forms until a fixed ultimate of debasement is reached. This
point is that at which the doctrine of modern evolution enters into the arena of
speculative hypothesis. Arrived at this period we will find it easier to
understand Haeckel’s Anthropogeny, which traces the pedigree of man ‘from its
protoplasmic root, sodden in the mud of seas which existed before the oldest of
the fossiliferous rocks were deposited,’ according to Professor Huxley’s
exposition. We may believe the man (of the Third Round) evolved ‘by gradual
modification of an (astral) mammal of ape-like organization’ still easier when
we remember that (though in a more condensed and less elegant, but still as
comprehensible, phraseology) the same theory was said by Berosus to have been
taught many thousands of years before his time by the man-fish Oannes or Dagon,
the semi-demon of Babylonia* (though on somewhat modified lines).
“But what lies back of the Darwinian line of descent? So far as he is concerned
nothing but ‘unverifiable hypotheses.’ For, as he puts it, he views all beings
‘as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first
bed of the Silurian system was deposited.’† He does not attempt to show us who
these ‘few beings’ were. But it answers our purpose quite as well, for, in the
admission of their existence at all, resort to the ancients for corroboration
and elaboration of the idea receives the stamp of scientific approbation. . . .
”
Truly, as also said in our first work: “If we accept Darwin’s theory of the
development of species, we find that his starting-point is placed in front of an
open door. We are at liberty with him, to either remain within, or cross the
threshold, beyond which lies the limitless and the incomprehensible, or rather
the Unutterable. If our mortal language is inadequate to express what our spirit
dimly foresees in the great ‘Beyond’ — while on this earth — it must realize it
at some point in the timeless Eternity.” But what lies “beyond” Haeckel’s
theory? Why Bathybius Haeckelii, and no more!
[3/12/2011 6:19:43 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=vi&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=en&tl=vi&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhoangvan.net%2Fthongthienhoc%2F32.txt
[3/12/2011 6:27:59 PM] Thuan Thi Do: anh Van an gi ngon the ?
[3/12/2011 6:30:48 PM] Thuan Thi Do: máy dịch: plant = cay coi, no dich là nhà
máy !
[3/12/2011 6:33:00 PM] kdanguyen: De cho moi nguoi de hieu co giong dan, cau Van
co the ve so do cac giong dan tren giay, sau do chup hinh bang camera goi email
cho moi nguoi
[3/12/2011 6:36:05 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/fp-052.jpg
[3/12/2011 7:14:28 PM] Van Atman: 236) Hỡi thí sinh, hãy bước cho vững. Hãy tắm
hồn con trong nước hương Kshanti ; vì lúc nầy con đã đến gần cửa mang tên nầy,
cửa dũng cảm và nhẫn nại.
Bây giờ chúng ta đã đến cửa thứ ba. Kshanti là đức nhẫn nại và sức mạnh của linh
hồn. Lòng nhiệt thành liên tục rất cần thiết, không phải thứ nhiệt tâm căng
thẳng, đáng lo ngại, giựt gân, nó làm cho con người kiệt quệ trước khi thực hiện
được cái hữu ích.
[3/12/2011 7:20:37 PM] kdanguyen: dinh nghia : kinh thu lang nghiem trong wiki
[3/12/2011 7:20:39 PM] kdanguyen:
http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C4%83ng-nghi%C3%AAm_kinh
[3/12/2011 7:21:47 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://dactrung.net/phorum/tm.aspx?m=346671&mpage=1&key=񔨯
[3/12/2011 7:28:48 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://www.quangduc.com/kinhdien/25langhiem00.html
[3/12/2011 7:54:40 PM] NGUYEN HUYEN MON: hoanam@live.com
[3/12/2011 8:01:31 PM] Thuan Thi Do: Anh Van dung windows media player version
thu may ? Toi dung version 9
[3/12/2011 8:24:30 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://hoangvan.net/thongthienhoc/audiobooks/DUONG%20DAO%20TRONG%20KY%20NGUYENMOI%20-%20DISCIPLES%20IN%20THE%20NEW%20AGE/2%20DUONG%20DAO%20TRONG%20KY%20NGUYENMOI%20-%20DISCIPLES%20IN%20THE%20NEW%20AGE.wma
[3/12/2011 9:06:38 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://www.biographyonline.net/spiritual/osho.html
[3/12/2011 9:08:06 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Osho/osho/Osho-on-Acharya-Tulsi-Scandal.html
[3/12/2011 9:09:18 PM] Thuan Thi Do: Two disciples of Acharya Tulsi left the
fold and exposed all the perversion, the sexual exploitation in the name of
religion. Acharya Tulsi has more than seventeen hundred monks and double that
number of nuns. It is a vast community of monks and nuns, and the exposures from
these two -- and since then others have joined -- reveal all kinds of perverted
practices, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and the nuns are being treated almost
like prostitutes. The monks are either heterosexual, exploiting the nuns, or
many of them are homosexual. And they all have taken the vow of celibacy!
[3/12/2011 9:38:37 PM] Thuan Thi Do: "Rajneesh/Osho is the worst thing that ever
happened to spirituality in the west. He rode herd over a mob of naive,
idealistic spiritual seekers, but definitely lacked the traits of an enlightened
master.
[3/12/2011 9:40:32 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://www.lifepositive.com/body/sexuality/sex-spirituality.asp
[3/12/2011 9:57:51 PM] NGUYEN HUYEN MON: Taoist Yoga - Mantak Chia
[3/12/2011 9:59:35 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://www.universal-tao.com/
[3/12/2011 10:54:31 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://tamlinhvahanhphuc.forumotion.net/register?agreed=true&step=2
[3/12/2011 11:01:16 PM] Thuan Thi Do: MAÌ€N ẢO THUẬT SÃ”Ì DAÌCH
ÄỘC ÄAÌO CỦA TRUYỀN THÔÌNG CỦA ÂÌN ÄỘ
[3/12/2011 11:06:39 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://viettidemagazine.net/
[3/12/2011 11:11:36 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://hoangvan.net/thongthienhoc/audiobooks/
[3/12/2011 11:56:48 PM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://www.einterface.net/gamini/tyana.html
[3/13/2011 12:27:44 AM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=aum&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS385US385&ie=UTF-8#q=aum+sound&hl=vi&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS385US385&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=a398TdO1MYz4swOTrbiCAw&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQqwQ&fp=4ba6c746ebf81c4b
[3/13/2011 12:29:27 AM] Thuan Thi Do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlWy4hPN3uQ
[3/13/2011 12:34:47 AM] *** Call ended, duration 6:31:33 ***
