But Flammarion himself falls into the very error which he here condemns, for he tacitly takes the conditions of life on Earth as the standard by which to determine the degree to which other Planets are adapted for habitation by “other humanities.”
Let us, however, leave these profitless and empty speculations, which, though they seem to fill our hearts with a glow of enthusiasm and to enlarge our mental and spiritual grasp, do but in reality cause a factitious stimulation, and blind us more and more to our ignorance not only of the world we inhabit, but even of the infinitude contained within ourselves.
When, therefore, we find “other worlds” spoken of in the Bibles of Humanity, we may safely conclude that they not only refer to other states of our Planetary Chain and Earth, but also to other inhabited Globes—Stars and Planets; withal, that no speculations were ever made about the latter. The whole of antiquity believed in the Universality of Life. But no really initiated Seer of any civilized nation has ever taught that life on other Stars could be judged by the standard of terrestrial life. What is generally meant by “Earths” and “Worlds,” relates (a) to the “rebirths” of our Globe after each Manvantara and a long period of Obscuration; and (b) to the periodical and entire changes of the Earth's surface, when continents disappear to make room for oceans, and oceans and seas are violently displaced and sent rolling to the poles, to cede their emplacements to new continents.
We may begin with the Bible—the youngest of the World-scriptures. In Ecclesiastes, we read these words of the King-Initiate:
One generation passeth away and another generation cometh, but the earth abideth for ever.... The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done, is that which shall be done, and there is no new thing under the sun.[1655]
Under these words it is not easy to see the reference to the successive cataclysms by which the Races of mankind are swept away, or, going further back, to the various transitions of the Globe during the process of its formation. But if we are told that this refers only to our world as we now see it, then we shall refer the reader to the New Testament, where St. Paul speaks of the Son (the manifested Power) whom God hath appointed heir of all things, “by whom also he made the worlds” (plural).[1656] This “Power” is Chokmah, the Wisdom and the Word.
We shall probably be told that by the term “worlds,” the stars, heavenly bodies, etc., were meant. But apart from the fact that “stars” were not known as “worlds” to the ignorant editors of the Epistles, even if they must have been thus known to Paul, who was an Initiate, a “Master-Builder,” we can quote on this point an eminent Theologian, Cardinal Wiseman. In his work (i. 309) treating of the indefinite period of the six days—or shall we say “too definite” period of the six days—of creation and the 6,000 years, he confesses that we are in total darkness as to the meaning of this statement of St. Paul, unless we are permitted to suppose that allusion is made in it to the period which elapsed between the first and second verses of chapter i of Genesis, and thus to those primitive revolutions, i.e., the destructions and the reproductions of the world, indicated in chapter i of Ecclesiastes; or, to accept, with so many others, and in its literal sense, the passage in chapter i of Hebrews, that speaks of the creation of “worlds”—in the plural. It is very singular, he adds, that all the cosmogonies should agree to suggest the same idea, and preserve the tradition of a first series of revolutions, owing to which the world was destroyed and again renewed.
Had the Cardinal studied the Zohar his doubts would have been changed into certainties. Thus saith the “Idra Suta”:
There were old worlds which perished as soon as they came into existence; worlds with and without form called Scintillas—for they were like the sparks under the smith's hammer, flying in all directions. Some were the primordial worlds which could not continue long, because the “Aged”—his name be sanctified—had not as yet assumed his form,[1657] the workman was not yet the “Heavenly Man.”[1658]
Again in the Midrash, written long before the Kabalah of Simeon Ben Iochai, Rabbi Abahu explains: