“The word ‘Chatvârah’ is separated from the word ‘Manavah,’ and is made to refer to Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatkumâra, and Sanatsujâta, who were also included among the mind-born sons of Prajâpati.
“But this interpretation will lead to a most absurd conclusion, and make the sentence contradict itself. The persons alluded to in the text have a qualifying clause in the sentence. It is well known that Sanaka and the other three refused to create, though the other sons had consented to do so: therefore, in speaking of those persons from whom humanity has sprung into existence, it would be absurd to include these four also in the list. The passage must be interpreted without splitting the compound into two nouns. The number of Manus will then be four, and the statement would then contradict the Paurânic account, though it would be in harmony with the Occult theory. You will recollect that it is stated [in Occultism] that we are now in the Fifth Root-Race. Each Root-Race is considered as the Santati of a particular Manu. Now, the Fourth Race has passed, or, in other words, there have been four past Manus.”
One has to remember that, in the Hindû Philosophy, every differentiated unit is such only through the Cycles of Mâyâ, being one in its essence with the Supreme or One Spirit. Hence arises the seeming confusion and contradiction in the various Purânas, and at times in the same Purâna, about the same individual. Vishnu—as the many-formed Brahmâ, and as Brahma (neuter)—is one, and yet he is said to be all the twenty-eight Vyâsas.
“In every Dvâpara (or third) age, Vishnu, in the person of Vyâsa, divides the Veda, which is (properly, but) one, into many portions.... Twenty-eight times have the Vedas been arranged by the great Rishis in the Vaivasvata Manvantara, in the Dvâpara age; and, consequently, eight and twenty Vyâsas have passed away.” (Vishnu Purâna, iii. 3; Wilson's Trans., iii. 33, 34.) “[They who were all] in the form of Veda-Vyâsa; who were the Vyâsas of their respective eras.” (Ibid., loc. cit., p. 33.) “This world is Brahmâ, in Brahmâ, from Brahmâ ... nothing further to be known.” Then, again, in the Harivamsha: “There were (in the first Manvantara) seven celebrated sons of Vasishtha, who (in the third Manvantara) were sons of Brahmâ (i.e., Rishis), the illustrious progeny of Ûrjâ.” (Ibid., iii. 6, note.) This is plain: the Humanity of the First Manvantara is that of the seventh and of all the intermediate ones. The Mankind of the First Root-Race is the mankind of the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc. To the last it forms a cyclic and constant reïncarnation of the Monads belonging to the Dhyân Chohans of our Planetary Chain.
To speak of life as having arisen, and of the human race as having originated, in this absurdly unscientific way, in the face of the modern Pedigrees of Man, is to court instantaneous annihilation. The Esoteric Doctrine risks the danger, nevertheless, and even goes so far as to ask the impartial reader to compare the above hypothesis (if it is one) with Hæckel's theory—now fast becoming an axiom with Science—which we quote verbatim as follows:
“How did life, the living world of organisms, arise? And, secondly, the special question: How did the human race originate? The first of these two enquiries, that as to the first appearance of living beings, can only be decided empirically [!!] by proof of the so-called Archebiosis, or equivocal generation, or the spontaneous production of organisms of the simplest conceivable kind. Such are the Monera (Protogenes, Protamœba, Protomyxa, Vampyrella), exceedingly simple microscopic masses of protoplasm without structure or organization, which take in nutriment and reproduce themselves by division. Such a Moneron as that primordial organism discovered by the renowned English zoologist Huxley and named Bathybius Hæckelii, appears as a continuous thick protoplasmic covering at the greatest depths of the ocean, between 3,000 and 30,000 feet. It is true that the first appearance of such Monera has not up to the present moment been actually observed; but there is nothing intrinsically improbable in such an Evolution.” (The Pedigree of Man, Aveling's translation, p. 33.)
The Bathybius protoplasm having recently turned out to be no organic substance at all, there remains little to be said. Nor, after reading this, does one need to consume further time in refuting the further assertion that: “In that case man also has, beyond a doubt [to the minds of Hæckel and his like], arisen from the lower Mammalia, apes, the earlier simian creatures, the still earlier Marsupialia, Amphibia, Pisces, by progressive transformations” (p. 36)—all produced by “a series of natural forces working blindly, ... without aim, without design.”
The above-quoted passage bears its criticism on its own face. Science is made to teach that, which, up to the present time, “has never been actually observed.” She is made to deny the phenomenon of an intelligent nature and a vital force independent of form and matter, and to find it more scientific to teach the miraculous performance of “natural forces working blindly without aim or design.” If so, then we are led to think that the physico-mechanical forces of the brains of certain eminent Scientists are leading them on as blindly to sacrifice logic and common sense on the altar of mutual admiration. Why should the protoplasmic Moneron producing the first living creature through self-division be held as a very scientific hypothesis, and an ethereal pre-human race generating the primeval men in the same fashion be tabooed as unscientific superstition? Or has Materialism obtained a sole monopoly in Science?
“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 branchiæ, a mammal with a tail, lastly a primate [?] and a biped? It is scarcely possible not to recognize in the embryonic evolution a rapid sketch, a faithful summary, of the entire organic series.” (Lefèvre, 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 fœtus—a fact triumphantly paraded by Hæckel 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?