The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2 of 4: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and PhilosophyBlavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Religion
The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2 of 4: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy
Blavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Theosophy
Thus Occultism rejects the idea that Nature developed man from the ape, or
even from an ancestor common to both; but, on the contrary, traces 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 Volume I,
Stanza VI.
Our teachings show that, while it is quite correct to say that Nature had,
at one time, built round the human astral form an _ape‐like external_
shape, it is also as correct that this shape was no more that of the
“missing link,” than were the multitudinous other coverings of that astral
form, during the course of its natural evolution through all the kingdoms
of Nature. Nor was it, as has been shown, 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, unless the latter is divorced from the dogmas of “natural
selection” and the like. Indeed, between the Moneron of Hæckel and the
Sarîsripa of Manu, there lies an impassable chasm in the shape of the
Jîva; for the “human” Monad, whether “immetallized” in the stone‐atom, or
“in‐vegetalized” in the plant, or “inanimalized” in the animal, is still
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 intended to create a superficial distinction: there is
no such thing as a Monad (Jîva) other than divine, and consequently having
once been, or having in the future to become, human. The latter term has
to remain meaningless unless this difference is well understood. The Monad
is a drop out of the Shoreless Ocean beyond, or, to be correct, _within_,
the plane of primæval 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—but a Monad it remains at all times, save in
the Nirvânic 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. The men of Science now try
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account