Blake C.C. - The Third Eye

This text was extracted from an image and needs proofreading.

Information about the work

Comprehensive Theosophical Dictionary

Terms (+) • Literature (+) • Persons (+) • Periodicals (+) • Sources

H A L P S

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

The Third Eye

Charles Carter Blake

(English: C. Carter Blake, Doct. Sci., The Third Eye)

Publications:

• Lucifer, vol. 4, no. 22, June 1889, pp. 341-345

Read:

• Electronic journal edition in Teopedia

Download:

• Original volume (PDF)

DATA

Title for references: Blake C.C. - The Third Eye
Short description:

Charles Carter Blake

The Third Eye

341

The teachings contained in the second volume of the Secret Doctrine, respecting the Third Eye, throw a light on the problems which have aroused comparative anatomy and zoology, and bring these sciences directly in face of the teaching of the “Masters.” If this had been done before, much trouble would have been saved, and the paper on which “Koot Hoomi Unveiled” was printed might have been applied to some more useful purpose. Let us see how modern science has laid down a foundation from which the Higher Teaching may be spread.

We have to consider the important memoir, which Sir Richard Owen published a few years ago. In it he describes the conario-hypophysial tract, in detail, and traces out the pineal and pituitary bodies from man downwards, until in Amphioxus, where the cerebral expansion of the myelencephalon is too 342feebly indicated, the homologue of any part of the tract in question has baffled Sir R. Owen’s quest, unless the pore or ciliated canal leading thereto may be in such relation.

In the mammalian series it may be observed that in the lower and smaller members, as the brain loses in relative size and complexity, the “pineal” or conarial and pituitary or hypophysial bodies and connections show a relatively larger size, with a less parenchymatous and a less interrupted tubular structure than in the human brain. In the lower, if not lowest forms of the feathered class, Sir Richard Owen has noticed a groove in the basisphenoid bone, which leads to a foramen opening into the seat of the pituitary body. In Reptiles, however, the proportions of the conario-hypophysial tract to the cerebral hemispheres become greater, and a vascular chord is continued up from the hollow “pineal” part of the tract, beyond the cleft between the pros – and mesencephalon, to a contiguous opening in the bony cranial roof in a proportion of the class, which proportion is greatest in the extinct members. This “pineal” production perforates as a rule the parietal bone, but in some species the suture between that bone and the frontal, rarely the frontal bone itself, and then near the suture, always opposite the interval between the fore and mid-brains. Beyond this hole, commonly called foramen parietale, but which may preferably be termed foramen pineala, the upward continuation of the conario-hypopophysial tract or tube is closed by the scalp or supracranial integument. The characters of the parietal or “pineal” foramen in the genera Galesaurus, Petrophryne, Dicynodon, Ptychognathus, Oudenodon, Kistocephalus, and Procolophodon are described by Sir Richard Owen in the below cited work. In some of these genera the hole is unusually large. Similar characters are shown by Trematosaurus Brauni and by Rhinosaurus Jasikovi. H. P. Blavatsky gives a reference to a work by Forscheldt on Labyrinthodon, in which the “third eye” is stated to have existed. This statement is extremely probable, but I have not seen Forscheldt’s work, the original type specimens of Labyrinthodon are in Germany, I believe, and the figures by Jaeger are not clear. Ichthyosaurus longifrons shows it distinctly, and it might be well expected to exist in Labyrinthodon.

Swedenborg, who as a comparative anatomist ranked higher than as a theologian, considered that “the pineal gland, the infundibulum and the pituitary gland elaborated the white or lymphatic blood of the brain.” Henle described the pineal as a lymphatic gland. Meynert regarded it as a ganglion originating the pigmentum cells, which are of two sizes. Magendie concluded its function to be mechanical; that the pineal acted as a kind of a plug, obstructing the communication between the third and fourth ventricles. Balfour states that no satisfactory suggestions have yet been offered as to the nature of 343the pineal gland, but referring to its position external to the skull in Amphibia, he says that it there “forms a mass originally described by Stieda as the cerebral gland.”

From a careful examination of the above facts, it may be concluded that the colossal Triassic reptile of South Africa, the great fish lizards of the Mesozoic age, and perhaps the Labyrinthodon, had a “third eye.” In some of these animals the foramen through which the pedicle passed that supported the eye, was of large size. An examination of this foramen is sufficient to show that it was not produced by any deficiency in the formation of phosphate of lime in cartilage. It is in no wise comparable to a “fontanelle.”

It may be assumed that the third eye of Ichthyosaurus may have been as richly endowed with sclerotic plates as the two other eyes. A restoration of the Third-Eyed Reptile, like those in the Crystal Palace, would give a peculiarly fearful idea of the features of the old saurian, which we could scarcely describe as

“Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum.”

The pencil of a good artist like the late Waterhouse Hawkins or E. W. Cooke, R.A., could have drawn such a Thing. The present generation is as deficient in elementary anatomy as in artistic taste.

Mr. W. H. Spencer’s memoir was certainly the most brilliant contribution to the zoology of the subject. His scientific exactitude is beyond all praise, though his paper is certainly injured by the imaginary diagrams, which pledge the author to the evolution theory. He gives a diagram to show the development of the epiphysis from an internally placed eye in the “brain” of an ancestor common to Tunicata and higher Chordata. Those who from the standpoint of occult or anatomical knowledge, are unable to realise such an ancestor, cannot admire this diagram.

However, the historical notices alone “endow” Mr. Spencer's paper “with artistic merit.” Brandt, in 1829, seems to have been the first who recognised that an internal modification existed in Lacerta agilis corresponding to the special scale. The external modification was also figured in Milne Edwards and Dugé. Forty years after, the Germans halting with tardy steps in the race for discovery, Leydig described the organ with clearness and described it as Lacerta agilis, L. muralis, L. vivipara and Anguis fragilis. Rabl Ruckhard, in 1882, considered that the organ was devoted to recognise the presence of heat. The first to suggest that it was a rudimentary eye was Ahlborn. Van Wijhe contributed important facts on the development of the epiphysis. De Graaf was the first to show the resemblance between this structure and the invertebrate eye. Mr. Spencer, with praiseworthy exactitude, 344has investigated the history of this organ in twenty-nine (at least) different species of living reptiles.

He comes to the conclusion that “the pineal eye in Lacertilia is a rudimentary structure; that at the present time it is not so highly developed as it must have been at some previous period, when fully functional. It is indeed difficult to ascertain whether the structure is now functional at all.”

Wiedersheim, in a paper mentioned by Mr. Spencer, but which I have not yet seen, has argued that in Varanus, at least, the organ is functional and not rudimentary. Of Mr. Spencer’s diagrams of the eye, I can say nothing but praise. A series of longitudinal vertical sections across the eye, within the parietal foramen and the pineal stalk, have shown that the eye, in whatever condition it exists in reptiles, is a structure that exhibits a true eyeball, a retina and an optic nerve. In a large proportion of lizards this internal structure is associated with the modification of an outward scale, which indicates the position of the third eye in living reptiles. The teacher who has inspired the author of the Secret Doctrine has told us of the races in which this third eye was in functional activity. It is indeed significant that it is in existing lizards, and serpent-like forms, that the nahash (נחש) should have preserved the traces of the third eye.

Cope has pointed out that in the cast of an extinct reptilian of the Permian, the cavity within the parietal foramen, presumably filled through life by the epiphysis, is of enormous size. In addition to this, Professor Cope points out a large posterior process, leading back towards the optic lobes and roof of the thalamencephalon which, without doubt, as Mr. Spencer indicates, represents the flattened pineal stalk. The conclusions of Mr. Spencer are emphatic. Pointing out the differences which exist between this eye and that of the Tunicates, he shows that there is not sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence of the organ within the group Pisces; it was present in extinct Amphibia, and is found among living forms only in Lacertilia. In all forms at present existing it is in a rudimentary state, and though its structure is better developed in some than in others, it is perfectly functional in none. “The Third Eye acted no longer.” It was present, most highly developed, in extinct Amphibia (Labyrinthodonta) and the large group of extinct forms, as Ichthyosaurus, Plesiosaurus, Iguanodon, some of which may possibly be regarded as ancestors alike of living Reptilia and Aves. Mr. Spencer’s last word breathes the spirit of truth, for he says, “The pineal eye may probably most rightly be considered as peculiarly a semi-organ of pre-Tertiary periods.”

Here we are brought at once to consider the light that comparative anatomy and palæontology are beginning to throw on the formation of the Third Eye, and we may carefully investigate whether or not it will be found that this teaching is perfectly on all fours with that of the Occultist. To the student of human nature, who thinks with Mephistopheles that the world does not advance except spirally, and that the great mind-thinkers of the present only reach points that have already been sculptured by their predecessors, the manner in which the “evolutionists” have let themselves down is sufficiently comic. For the appearance of a third eye was sufficiently startling. Had it been at all like that of a 345Tunicate, it might have been a satisfactory bit of evidence. But as it differs from a Tunicate eye, it is difficult to know with what care even such evolutionists as Sir John Lubbock will tackle the ill-fitting and unpleasant subject. For it is quite on the tapis that it is the teaching of the Secret Doctrine that may help the teachings of the Zoologist. If we have a raison d’être for the existence of a third eye, its modifications have a value.

I therefore respectfully ask the Editor of Lucifer:

I. What evidence is there of the existence of the Third eye, other than in Ichthyopterygia, Sauropterygia, Anomodontia, Labyrinthodontia, but among existing forms?

II. Outside the Lacertilia described by Mr. Spencer, is there any other living animal which shows the “Third Eye”?

C. Carter Blake, Doct. Sci.

Footnotes

---