there is none other. When he gets it, he at once gets the supreme characteristics of omniscience, etc. It explains the beginningless Dharma, teaches of the Paramaṭmā, and leads to the state of Paramāṭmā, hence it is viḍyā; established in it, he manifests the light supreme, the supreme cause." [INTRODUCTION TO 8TH SUTRA.] Thus he having attained the Sahajaviḍyā, जाग्रद्वितीयकरः ॥ ८ ॥ VIII. Wakeful, (he becomes) the world-rayed. If one who has attained the shuddhaviḍyā is careful in being constantly fixed in it, he becomes one who has as his rays the world, which is the second with reference to the Ahamṭā, (I-ness), of the nature of Pūrṇavimarsha (full consciousnes), is called thisness (idanță), and manifests itself as the known. It means the universe appears to him as his rays. As said in the Vijnanabhairava :" Whereever through the senses the consciousness of the Lord manifests itself, that has the nature of ṭanmāṭra, hence it becomes dissolved in consciousness, hence it becomes filled."* Also in Shri Sarvamangala : "Two things are mentioned, shakţi and the possessor of shakţi ; shaktis are to him all the world, and Maheshvara is the possessor of shakti." P. T. SRINIVASA IYENGAR. (To be continued.) *This quotation is extremely interesting, because it explains the word tanmāṭra from the idealistic standpoint of their Kashmir Shaiva school. Shiva and shakţi are the only entities in the world. When this shakti flows through one of the senses, it manifestates as sensation. Tanmaṭra is that merely,' pure consciousness showing itself in the limited, conditioned form as a sensation. As consciousness manifests itself everywhere "the world becomes filled;" when consciousness is withdrawn the world is emptiness, unreality, non-entity. SOME OCCULT INDICATIONS IN ANCIENT ASTRONOMY. THE (Concluded from p. 165.) HE preceding positions and data are all exceedingly striking and they agree very much more closely than could, under all the circumstances, be expected; while the assignable limits of error show that the last results may be quite accurate. And even if it could be satisfactorily shown that the future corrections to the planetary motions would be in the opposite directions to the above outstanding differences, this would not help objectors to the theory that the Mahāyuga is correct out of the difficulty very far; for the synodic periods derivable from it would still be far more accurate than any we possessed prior to the year 1820-and there would also remain the greater probability in favor of the conjunction rather than against it. These things being so, the enquiry naturally arises--where and when, setting aside the reference to the Atlanteans and any other theosophic or occult explanation, did the ancients become acquainted with the exact length of this cycle? We have seen that it would have been impossible for western scientists of the present day to have obtained its measure from their own data, unless put in possession of its approximate length from some external source. It thence appears that the Mahāyuga period is strictly original, and could not have been got up within the historical period or from western data; and this being so, and it being found to agree so nearly with the best, latest, and most refined efforts of the combined intellectual strength of Europe, it follows that the archaic scientists were in possession of our astronomical periods ages before we, with all our boasted superiority to the ancients in such matters, had arrived at them by slow degrees and intense labor. Moreover this triumph of the ancients is more than complete; for though it may be claimed .that whatever the archaic astronomers may have accomplished in reference to the bodies visible to the unassisted eye, they knew nothing of others, yet by the preceding it appears that our own astronomers can no longer point to their discoveries of Uranus and Neptune (which were marvels of telescopic power and intellectual penetration) as a point of vantage to which the scientists of a hoary antiquity could not attain. And indeed, quite independently of the conclusions on this head derivable from the Mahāyuga, which might be vitiated if any great alteration is in future made in the mean motions of these two planets (but which we may predict will consist of thirty seconds per century or multiples thereof) it is said that one, if not both of the most distant planets were known to the ancient writers. This escaped notice until modern times; when by reference to any handbook on Astronomy we may see that Uranus was discovered by aid of the first great reflecting telescope used in England on the 13th of March in the year 1781; though its existence had been previously suspected, owing to the unexplained perturbations in the movements of Saturn †. And similarly the planet Neptune was discovered by us through the unaccounted-for movements of Uranus, on September 18th, 1846, when it was seen by Dr. Galle with a powerful telescope, in the very point in the sky where the calculations of Adams and Leverrier had indicated that it would be found. The difficulties which the discoverers had to face were enormous, § but it is said that "both not only solved the problem, but did so with a completeness that filled the world with astonishment and admiration ; in which none more ardently shared than those who, from their attainments, were best qualified to appreciate the difficulties of the question". And every writer upon the subject for the last sixty years has sung pæans of victory over this celebrated performance as the crowning intellectual triumph of the present day **; but by the contents of the present paper it appears that the whole had been forestalled many ages ago by those despised ancients, whom modern Europeans have been in the habit of looking down upon as the very impersonations of superstitious ignorance. †† And now, after we have seen that all the ancient numbers dealt with will stand the most crucial examination, and that, when put to such a test, they reveal a depth of knowledge sufficient to put to flight all theories as to their source, and possibility of fraud, which have hitherto been forthcoming, what are we to conclude as to The Secret Doctrine, i. 126, 128, ii. 512, 513. Cf Isis Unveiled, i, 267, etc. † Orbs of Heaven, 127, by Prof. Mitchell. ** Mitchell's Astronomy, 217. § Ibid, 215, 216. Popular Astronomy, 179, ed., 1856, by Dionysius Lardner, D. C.L. For the high attainments and qualifications of Mons. Leverrier and Mr. Adams, se e Orbs of Heaven, 138 et seq. **Mitchell's Astronomy, 211. (Routledge's ed.). †† Cf Isis Unveiled, i, 239. their origin? Will our scientists, if they fail to unravel this Gordian knot, resort to that well-worn and threadbare hypothesis which is thrown in the face of every such question, and conclude that the whole is a mere coincidence of numbers-or that the movements of the planets are not yet so perfectly known as to debar the possibility of serious error in this matter, and that no conjunction may after all take place in the great period as here given? Well, they are welcome to take refuge in so forlorn a hope; for with the adoption of those assumptions they will at once fling away all the value which attaches to their patient labor in observation, and the construction of elaborate theories for the last two hundred years; for, as we have seen, the celestial movements are now supposed to be known within such narrow limits that to attempt to escape from the dilemma by invalidating the quantities which are to-day employed almost in their entirety in the construction of our national ephemeris, and that by amounts sufficient to upset the position we assume in this matter, would be to acknowledge the uselessness of all their labors, and to give up the grounds upon which their hypotheses are based, and for which they contend in the strongest manner. Nevertheless, they will probably not hesitate to support any sort of theory * which may serve to throw discredit upon the early philosophers, rather than face the admission that their own most cherished science may be but a second-hand production, and themselves but the imperfect latter-day exponents of the knowledge which would appear to have been possessed by those students of the archaic time, whose investigations of the phenomena of nature appear long to have preceded the dawn of what we are, or have been, in the habit of talking of as "authentic history." For, when the validity of the present calculations is admitted, there are left only two hypotheses to account for them-first, that they are the result of observation in long-past ages, the records of which (since they are not visibly extant) may be preserved in some place inaccessible to us; or, on the other hand, that the hidden Masters of the occult knowledge have at their command the means of tracing the motions of the heavens into the depths of primeval time or future millenniums-a power as far exceeding ours as the distances of the fixed stars exceed that of the moon. † Scientists who object *The Secret Doctrine, ii, 460. + Cf Isis Unveiled, i. 331, 332, and Denton there quoted. to Occultism are welcome to either horn of this dilemma, neither of which they can admit from their point of view; and it is open to them to propose any better solution-if they can. Are we indeed to admit that the old astronomers of, say the lost Atlantis, had such and so great knowledge that ours is dwarfed by comparison? If so, and if that knowledge has been hidden, but not lost, throughout the ages, and is accessible to such as may be fortunate enough to possess the keys of that hidden Temple of Wisdom, then we can understand the reason why the meaning of the ancient glyphs, mystic letters, and other monuments has not been generally known. We may then be able to surmise what may have lain hidden behind the casual remarks of such ancient writers as the Roman historian Censorinus, who, in speaking of these hidden numbers and their meanings, makes use of such dubious expressions as :" It is not mine to say; but what I have read in Varro, that will I not withhold."* When we contemplate such things we can scarcely wonder that, in the first quarter of the last century, the free-thinking and rationalistic Godfrey Higgins, whom no one will accuse of any theosophic leanings, comes to the conclusion that: "It is evident there was a secret science possessed somewhere, which must have been guarded with the most solemn oaths, and though I may be laughed at by those who enquire not deeply into the origin of things for saying it, yet I cannot help suspecting there is still a secret doctrine, known only in the deep recesses, the crypts, of Thibet, St. Peters, and the Cremlin." † Though these words of the learned Mr. Higgins were penned long before there was any evidence of what has since come to light in theosophic literature, yet the latter-day students of Gnostic Theosophy and the teachings ascribed to the Central Asian Mahātmās will be at no loss to decide to what he and the authorities he quotes thus more or less obscurely refer. And if it be objected that the few numbers we have dealt with, however strange the revelations thence, are scarcely numerous enough to support such large conclusions, let it be remembered that, as Higgins says: "In our endeavors to recover the lost science of former ages, it is * Cap. xvii in fine, quoted in Anacalypsis, i, 275. The italics are mine-S.S. Anacalypsis, i, 275; Isis Unveiled, ii,16, Refer to The Secret¦Doctrine,i, 19, and re Mahāṭmās see Įsis Unveiled, i, 214. |