El Origen del Hombre a la luz de la Antropología Psicoanalítica

The origin of man in the light of psychoanalytical anthropology

The origin of man in the light of psychoanalytical anthropology 850 480 V.M. Samael Aun Weor

1.-  Disciple: Master, how can we define Gnostic anthropology?

Master: Well, it is an anthropology, in contrast, different from the materialistic one. We know that anthropos is “man”, right? Anthropos, “man”, and “anthropology”, “the origin or history of man”, correct?

But “Gnostic” means “Gnosis”, “knowledge”. It is a more profound anthropological knowledge which goes to its Gnostic root, to its sapient root. It looks for the sapient homo by another different system of study, which precisely is the Gnostic one.

It is a different system and we reach the sapient homo by a very different path. We reach the sapient homo by means of our own investigation. We do not search outside, we search inside of us, and inside of us we find the true origin of man. Not outside, but inside! Let’s see…

2. From that time of Mr. Darwin up to Haeckel and later on, from Haeckel to our days, countless hypotheses and theories have emerged about the origin of man. However, we have to clarify in an emphatic way that none of those suppositions can be decidedly demonstrated. Haeckel himself assures with great emphasis that neither geology nor that other science called phylogeny will ever reach accuracy within the field of official science itself.

If Haeckel makes an assertion of this kind, what could we add to this? In reality, the origin of life and the origin of man could never be known as long as humanity has not studied in depth the Gnostic anthropology.

What do the materialistic protistologists say? What do they assert with so much arrogance? What do they assume about the origin of life and of the human psyche?

Let us remember with utmost clarity Haeckel’s famous “atomic moneran” amid the aqueous abyss: a complex atom that could in no way emerge haphazardly as this good man, ignorant in essence, supposes, although praised by many English people. He caused great harm to humanity with his famous theories.

Do you really believe that the atom from the aqueous abyss, the atomic moneran, could emerge haphazardly? If in order to create an atomic bomb we need the intelligence of the scientists, how much more talent would be required to elaborate an atom?

If we denied Nature the existence of its intelligent principles, the mechanics would cease to exist, because the existence of mechanics is not possible without mechanical operators. If someone considered possible the existence of any machine without its creator, I would like him to prove it and put on the laboratory table the chemical elements for a radio to emerge, or a car, or simply an organic cell.

I think that Mr. Alfonso Herrera, the founder of plasmogeny, already succeeded in creating the artificial cell, but it was always a dead cell that never had life.

And what do protistologists say? They say that the Consciousness, the Being, the Soul or Spirit, or simply the psychic principles, are nothing more than molecular evolutions of the protoplasm across the centuries.

Obviously, the “molecular souls” of the fanatic protistologists would never resist an in-depth analysis. The soul-cell, the gelatinous bathybius of famous Haeckel –from which every organic species emerged– is worthy of Molière and his caricatures.

The crux of this entire matter and of so many mechanistic and evolutionary theories, is to combat the clergy. They always seek some system, some theory to satisfy the mind and the heart in order to knock down the Jewish Genesis. The living origin of the Darwins, of the Haeckels and the rest of the followers is precisely a reaction against the biblical Adam and his famous Eve, taken out of a rib. But they should be honest and express their dissatisfaction about all clerical concept. It is unfair that, out of sheer rection, so many hypotheses lacking any serious foundation are generated.

What does Mr. Darwin tell us about the catarrhine monkey? He says that, possibly, man descended from it. However, he does not assert it as emphatically as the rest of the German and British materialists assume. In reality, Mr. Darwin placed certain foundations within his system that come to undermine and even absolutely annihilate the supposed human provenience from the monkey, even from the catarrhine monkey.

Firstly, as Mr. Huxley already demonstrated, man’s skeleton of man is completely different in its construction from the monkey’s skeleton. I do not doubt that there are certain similarities between the anthropoid and the poor intellectual animal mistakenly called man, but there is no definitive exactitude in this respect.

The skeleton of the anthropoid is tree-climbing, it has been made for climbing; this is indicated by the elasticity and construction of its bone structure. Conversely, the human skeleton has been made for walking. They are two different bone structures. On the other hand, the elasticity and the cranial axis of the anthropoid and of the human being are completely different. And this gets us thinking very seriously.

On the other hand, my esteemed friends, the materialistic anthropologists themselves have clearly said that an organized being could never descend from another which evolves the other way around, antithetically organized.

We have to give an example in this respect. Let’s see the man and the anthropoid. Man, although degenerated nowadays, is an organized being. Let’s study the life and habits of the anthropoid and we will see that it is organized in a different, antithetic, opposite way. So, an organized being could not descend from another which is organized in an opposite way, and this has always been asserted, very sternly, by the materialistic schools themselves.

How old is the anthropoid? In what period did the first apes appear on the face of the earth? Unquestionably, in the [superior] Miocene. Who could deny it? Obviously, they must have appeared in the third part of the Miocene, between 15 to 25 million years ago.

Why did the anthropoids had to appear on the face of the earth? Could the gentlemen of the materialistic anthropology, the brilliant modern scientists, those who boast about being wise, give us an accurate answer? Obviously not!

Furthermore, the Miocene was in no way situated in that famous “Pangea”, so much talked-about by the geology of a materialistic type. It is clear that the Miocene had its own scenario in the ancient Lemurian land, a continent previously located in the Pacific Ocean. We still have remainders of Lemuria in Oceania with the great Australia, the Easter Island –where certain monoliths are sculpted–, etc. That materialistic anthropology does not accept it due to being completely bottled up in its Pangea, why would it matter to science and to us? In reality, they will not discover Lemuria with carbon-14 or potassium-argon or pollen dating. All those materialistic type systems of dating are worthy of Molière and his caricatures.

In these times, after the infinite hypotheses of the Haeckels and of the Darwins and of the Huxleys and all their followers, the theory of the natural selection of the species is still enthroned, being given nothing less than the power to create new species. In the name of the truth, we must say that natural selection, as creative power, is simply a game of rhetoric for the ignorants, something that has no foundations. Saying that by means of selection new species can be created, saying that by means of selective selection man would have emerged, turns out to be, in essence, frightfully ridiculous and betrays ignorance taken to the extreme.

I do not deny the existence of natural selection, it is obvious that it exists, but it does not have the power to create new species. In fact, what exists is the physiological selection, the selection of structures and the segregation of the fittest, that is all. But taking natural selection to the degree of turning it into a universal creative power is the worst of the worst.

Such foolishness would never occur to any true sage. No one has ever seen a new species emerging by means of natural selection. When? In what age? Structures are selected, yes, we do not deny it. The strongest triumph in the battle for the daily bread, in the unceasing battle of every moment, where one struggles to eat and not be eaten. Obviously, the strongest triumph and transmit their traits to their descendants: physiological traits, structural traits. Then the selected ones, the fittest, are segregated and transmit their abilities to their descendants. That is how the law of natural selection must be understood, this is how it must be comprehended.

Any species, in the deep forests of Nature, has to struggle to eat and not be eaten. Obviously, that struggle is frightful. As a result, the strongest triumph as it is natural. In the strongest there are wonderful structures, important traits that are transmitted to the descendants. But that does not imply a change of shape, that does not mean the birth of new species. No materialistic scientist has ever seen a new species emerging from another through the law of natural selection; they have no proof of that, they have never witnessed it. What do they rely on? It is easy to launch a hypothesis and then dogmatically assert that it is the truth and nothing but the truth.

However, aren’t they –the gentlemen of materialistic anthropology– the ones who say that they only believe in what they see, that they do not accept anything they have not seen? What a terrible contradiction: they believe in their hypotheses but they have never seen them!

3. The theories of these foolish scientists are countless, absurd affirmations of facts which they have never seen.

We, the Gnostics, do not accept superstitions, and those are absurd superstitions. We are mathematical in investigation and demanding in expression. We do not like such fantasies, we want acts, concrete and definitive facts.

4. Mr. Darwin says that one species that evolves positively cannot, in any way, descend from another one that evolves negatively. Mr. Darwin also asserts that two similar, but different species can refer to a common ancestor, but one could never descend from the other.

So, as we advance in these disquisitions of scientific anthropology, we obviously find certain contradictions of materialism. How is it possible for the Darwinistic principles to be ignored? How is it possible that there still exist nowadays people who think that man comes from the monkey?

Unquestionably, the facts are speaking for themselves. Until now, the famous missing link has never been found. Where is it?

Much has been said against the existence of the father of Manu, the Dhyan-Chohan, but in reality, there are millions of persons in the Eastern world and even in the Western world, who accept the Dhyan-Chohan.

Furthermore, such a belief is more logical than that of the monkey-man which Haeckel would have liked to exist but which, in fact, never got to be more than a simple fantasy of its author.

Time is passing and the famous monkey-man has not been discovered anywhere on earth. Where would a monkey who reasons, who thinks, who has a language accessible to everyone, exist? What is it?

Unquestionably, this kind of literary fantasies are, in essence, absolutely useless. Observe, for example, the size of the brains. The brain of a gorilla, in volume, does not even reach one third of the brain of any aboriginal from Australia –which we know well that are the most primitive creatures on our terrestrial orb–.

A link to connect the most advanced gorilla with the most underdeveloped aboriginal form Australia, would be missing. Where is that link? What happened? Does it exist at all?

5. There is a great difference between merely profane anthropology and Gnostic anthropology. Merely profane anthropology, by means of associations of intellective type, reaches logical conclusions which may actually not coincide, in fact, with the esoteric principles of Anahuac, or of the Toltecs, or of Egypt, etc. However, Gnostic wisdom, Gnostic anthropology, based on precise rules and eternal traditional principles, knows how to extract the entire esoteric wisdom from the archaic stones. So, we must differentiate between Gnostic anthropology and merely intellective anthropology.

6. What does Gnostic anthropology rely on to assert this? Why does it say this? It does not only rely on all the traditions that come from the sacred books of Egypt, of ancient Mexico, of the Inca people, from the lands of the Mayas, from Greece, India, Persia, Tibet, etc., but also on the direct investigations of those who have succeeded in awakening Consciousness.

Here, in this Institution, we will give you all the systems necessary to awaken Consciousness. And when you awaken, you will investigate and verify what I am telling you, but by yourselves, not because I am telling you; you will verify it directly. But awaken, because asleep as you are now, you could also become victims of those theories of Haeckel and his followers.

Chapter: Gnostic Anthropology
Samael Aun Weor