Were there no such thing as evolutionary cycles, as an eternal spiral progress into Matter with a proportionate obscuration of Spirit (though the two are one) followed by an inverse ascent into Spirit and the defeat of Matter—active and passive by turn—how could we explain the discoveries of Zoology and Geology? How is it that, on the dictum of authoritative Science, one can trace the animal life from the mollusc up to the great sea-dragon, from the smallest land-worm up again to the gigantic animals of the Tertiary period; and that the latter were once crossed is shown by the fact of all those species decreasing, dwindling down and becoming dwarfed. If the seeming process of development working from the less to the more perfect, and from the simpler to the more complex, were a universal law indeed, instead of being a very imperfect generalization of a mere secondary nature in the great cosmic process, and if there were no such cycles as those claimed, then the Mesozoic fauna and flora ought to change places with the latest Neolithic. It is the plesiosauri and the ichthyosauri that we ought to find developing from the present sea- and river-reptiles, instead of these giving place to their dwarfed modern analogies. It is, again, our old friend, the good-tempered elephant, that would be the fossil antediluvian ancestor, and the mammoth of the Pliocene age who would be in the menagerie; the megalonyx and the gigantic megatherium would be found instead of the lazy sloth in the forests of South America, in which the colossal ferns of the carboniferous periods would take the place of the mosses and the present trees—dwarfs, even the giants of California, in comparison with the Titan-trees of past geological periods. Surely the organisms of the megasthenian world of the Tertiary and the Mesozoic ages must have been more complex and perfect than those of the microsthenian plants and animals of the present age? The dryopithecus, for instance, is more perfect anatomically, is more fit for a greater development of brain power, than the modern gorilla [pg 775] or gibbon. How is all this, then? Are we to believe that the constitution of all those colossal land- and sea-dragons, of the gigantic flying reptiles, was not far more developed and complex than the anatomy of the lizards, turtles, crocodiles, and even of the whales—in short, of all those animals with which we are acquainted?
Let us admit, however, for argument's sake, that all those cycles, races, septenary forms of evolution, and the tutti quanti of Esoteric teaching, are no better than a delusion and a snare. Let us agree with Science and say that man—instead of being an imprisoned “spirit,” and his vehicle, the shell or body, a gradually perfected and now complete mechanism for material and terrestrial uses, as claimed by the Occultists—is simply a more developed animal, whose primal form emerged from one and the same primitive germ on this Earth as the flying dragon and the gnat, the whale and the amoeba, the crocodile and the frog, etc. In this case, he must have passed through the identical developments and through the same process of growth as all the other mammals. If man is an animal, and nothing more, a highly intellectual “ex-brute,” he should at least be allowed to have been a gigantic mammal of his kind, a “meganthropus” in his day. This is exactly what Esoteric Science shows to have taken place in the first three Rounds, and in this, as in most other things, it is more logical and consistent than Modern Science. It classifies the human body with the brute creation, and maintains it in the path of animal evolution, from first to last, while Science leaves man a parentless orphan born of sires unknown, an “unspecialized skeleton” truly! And this mistake is due to a stubborn rejection of the doctrine of cycles.
A. The Origin And Evolution Of The Mammalia: Science And Esoteric Phylogeny.
Having dealt almost exclusively with the question of the origin of man in the foregoing criticism of Western Evolutionism, it may not be amiss to define the position of the Occultists with regard to the differentiation of species. The pre-human fauna and flora have been already dealt with generally in the Commentary on the Stanzas, and the truth of much of modern biological speculation has been admitted, e.g., the derivation of birds from reptiles, the partial truth of “natural selection,” and the transformation theory generally. It now remains to clear up the mystery of the origin of those first mammalian faunæ [pg 776] which M. de Quatrefages so brilliantly endeavours to prove contemporary with the Homo primigenius of the Secondary Age.
The somewhat complicated problem relating to the “Origin of Species”—more especially of the varied groups of fossil or existing mammalian faunæ—will be rendered less obscure by the aid of a diagram. It will then be apparent to what extent the “factors of organic evolution,” relied upon by Western Biologists,[1719] are to be considered as adequate to meet the facts. The line of demarcation between ethereo-spiritual, astral and physical evolution must be drawn. Perhaps, if Darwinians deigned to consider the possibility of the second process, they would no longer have to lament the fact that:
We are referred entirely to conjecture and inference for the origin of the mammals![1720]
At present the admitted chasm between the systems of reproduction of the oviparous vertebrates and mammalia constitutes a hopeless crux to those thinkers who, with the Evolutionists, seek to link all existing organic forms in a continuous line of descent.
Let us take, for instance, the case of the ungulate mammals, since it is said that in no other division do we possess such abundant fossil material. So much progress has been made in this direction, that in some instances the intermediate links between the modern and Eocene ungulates have been unearthed; a notable example being that of the complete proof of the derivation of the present one-toed horse from the three-toed anchitherium of the old Tertiary. This standard of comparison between Western Biology and the Eastern Doctrine could not, therefore, be improved upon. The pedigree here utilized, as embodying the views of Scientists in general, is that of Schmidt, based on the exhaustive researches of Rütimeyer. Its approximate accuracy—from the standpoint of evolutionism—leaves little to be desired:
