Stanza II. Nature Unaided Fails

5. After enormous periods the Earth creates monsters. 6. The “Creators” are displeased. 7. They dry the Earth. 8. The forms are destroyed by them. 9. The first great tides. 10. The beginning of incrustation.

5. The Wheel whirled for thirty crores more.97 It constructed Rûpas;98 soft Stones that hardened,99 hard plants that softened.100 Visible from invisible, Insects and small Lives.101 She102 shook them off her back whenever they overran the Mother (a).... After thirty crores, she turned round. She lay on her back; on her side.... She would call no Sons of Heaven, she would ask no Sons of Wisdom. She created from her own bosom. She evolved Water-Men, terrible and bad (b).

(a) This relates to an inclination of the axis—of which there were several—to a consequent deluge and chaos on Earth (having, however, no reference to Primeval Chaos), in which monsters, half-human, half-animal, were generated. We find it mentioned in the Book of the Dead, and also in the Chaldæan account of creation, on the Cutha Tablets, however mutilated.

It is not even allegory. Here we have facts, that are found repeated in the account of the Pymander, as well as in the Chaldæan tablets of creation. The verses may almost be checked by the Cosmogony, as given by Berosus, which has been disfigured out of recognition by Eusebius, but some of the features of which may yet be found in fragments left by ancient Greek authors—Apollodorus, Alexander Polyhistor, etc. “The water-men terrible and bad”—who were the production of Physical Nature alone, a result of the “evolutionary impulse” and the first attempt to create “man,” the crown, and the aim and goal of all animal life on Earth—are shown to be failures in our Stanzas. Do we not find the same in the Berosian Cosmogony, denounced with such vehemence as the culmination of heathen absurdity? And yet who of the Evolutionists can say that things in the beginning have not come to pass as they are described? That, as maintained in the Purânas, the Egyptian and Chaldæan fragments, and even in Genesis, there have not been two, and even more, “creations,” before the last formation of the Globe; which, changing its geological and atmospheric conditions, changed also its flora, its fauna, and its men? This claim agrees not only with every ancient Cosmogony, but also with Modern Science, and even, to a certain degree, with the theory of evolution, as may be demonstrated in a few words.

There is no “Dark Creation,” no “Evil Dragon” conquered by a Sun-God, in the earliest World-Cosmogonies. Even with the Akkads, the Great Deep—the Watery Abyss, or Space—was the birthplace and abode of Ea, Wisdom, the incognizable infinite Deity. But with the Semites and the later Chaldæans, the fathomless Deep of Wisdom becomes gross Matter, sinful substance, and Ea is changed into Tiamat, the Dragon slain by Merodach, or Satan, in the astral waves.

In the Hindû Purânas, Brahmâ, the Creator, is seen recommencing de novo several “Creations” after as many failures; and two great Creations are mentioned,103 the Pâdma and the Vârâha, the present, when the Earth was lifted out of the water by Brahmâ, in the shape of a Boar, the Varâha Avatâra. Creation is shown as a sport, an amusement (Lîlâ) of the Creative God. The Zohar speaks of primordial worlds, which perished as soon as they came into existence. And the same is said in the Midraish, Rabbi Abahu explaining distinctly104 that “the Holy One” had successively created and destroyed sundry Worlds, before he succeeded in the present one. This does not relate only to other Worlds in Space, but to a mystery of our own Globe contained in the allegory about the “Kings of Edom.” For the words, “This one pleases me,” are repeated in Genesis,105 though in disfigured terms, as usual. The Chaldæan fragments of Cosmogony in the cuneiform inscriptions, and elsewhere, show two distinct creations of animals and men, the first being destroyed, as it was a failure. The Cosmogonical tablets prove that this our actual creation was preceded by others;106 and as shown by the author of The Qabbalah, in the Zohar, Siphra Dtzenioutha, in Jovah Rabba, 128a, etc., the Kabalah states the same.

(b) Oannes, or Dagon, the Chaldæan “Man-fish,” divides his Cosmogony and Genesis into two portions. First the abyss of waters and darkness, wherein resided most hideous beings—men with wings, four and two-winged men, human beings with two heads, with the legs and horns of a goat—our “goat-men”107—hippocentaurs, bulls with the heads of men, and dogs with tails of fishes. In short, combinations of various animals and men, of fishes, reptiles and other monstrous animals, assuming each other’s shapes and countenances. The feminine element they resided in is personified by Thalatth—the Sea, or “Water”—which was finally conquered by Belus, the male principle. And Polyhistor says:

Belus came, and cut the woman asunder; and of one half of her he formed the earth, and of the other half the heavens; and at the same time destroyed the animals within her.108

As pertinently remarked by Isaac Myer:

With the Akkadians each object and power of Nature had its Zi or Spirit. The Akkadians formed their deities into triads, usually of males [sexless, rather?], the Semites also had triadic deities, but introduced sex109 —or phallicism. With the Âryan and the earliest Akkadians all things are emanations through, not by, a Creator or Logos. With the Semites everything is begotten.

6. The Water-Men, terrible and bad, she herself created from the remains of others.110 From the dross and slime of her First, Second, and Third,111 she formed them. The Dhyâni came and looked.... the Dhyâni from the bright Father-Mother, from the White112 Regions they113 came, from the Abodes of the Immortal Mortals (a).

(a) The explanations given in our Stanzas are far more clear than that which the legend of creation from the Cutha tablet would give, even were it complete. What is preserved on it, however, corroborates them. For, in the tablet, the “Lord of Angels” destroys the men in the abyss, when “there were not left the carcases and waste” after they were slaughtered. After which they, the Great Gods, create men with the bodies of birds of the desert, human beings, “seven kings, brothers of the same family,” etc., which is a reference to the locomotive qualities of the primary ethereal bodies of men, which could fly as well as they could walk,114 but who “were destroyed” because they were not “perfect,” i.e., they “were sexless, like the Kings of Edom.”

Weeded of metaphors and allegories, what will Science say to this idea of a primordial creation of species? It will object to the “Angels” and “Spirits” having anything to do therewith; but if it be Nature and the physical law of evolution that are the creators of all there is now on Earth, why could there be “no such abyss,” when the Globe was covered with waters, in which numbers of monstrous beings were generated? Is it the “human beings” and animals with human heads and double faces, which are a point of the objection? But if man is only a higher animal and has evolved from the brute species by an infinite series of transformations, why could not the “missing links” have had human heads attached to the bodies of animals, or, being two-headed, have heads of beasts and vice versâ, in Nature’s early efforts? Are we not shown, during the geological periods, in the ages of the reptiles and the mammalia, lizards with birds’ wings, and serpents’ heads on animal bodies?115 And, arguing from the standpoint of Science, does not even our modern human race occasionally furnish us with monster-specimens: two-headed children, animal bodies with human heads, dog-headed babies, etc.? And this proves that, if Nature will still play such freaks now that she has been settled for ages in the order of her evolutionary work, monsters, like those described by Berosus, were a possibility in her opening programme; a possibility which may even have existed once upon a time as a law, before she sorted out her species and began regular work upon them. And this indeed now admits of definite proof by the bare fact of “Reversion,” as Science puts it.

This is what the Doctrine teaches, and demonstrates by numerous proofs. But we shall not wait for the approval of either dogmatic Theology or Materialistic Science, but proceed with the Stanzas. Let these speak for themselves, with the help of the light thrown on them by the Commentaries and their explanations; the scientific aspect of these questions will be considered later on.

Thus Physical Nature, when left to herself in the creation of animal and man, is shown to have failed. She can produce the first two kingdoms, as well as that of the lower animals, but when it comes to the turn of man, spiritual, independent and intelligent powers are required for his creation, besides the “coats of skin” and the “breath of animal life.” The human Monads of preceding Rounds need something higher than purely physical materials with which to build their personalities, under the penalty of remaining even below any “Frankenstein” animal.116

7. Displeased they were. “Our Flesh is not there.117 No fit Rûpas for our Brothers of the Fifth. No Dwellings for the Lives.118 Pure Waters, not turbid, they must drink (a). Let us dry them.”119

(a) Says the Catechism on the Commentaries:

It is from the material Worlds that descend they, who fashion physical man at the new Manvantaras. They are inferior Lha [Spirits], possessed of a dual body [an Astral within an Ethereal Form]. They are the fashioners and creators of our body of illusion....

Into the forms projected by the Lha [Pitris] the Two Letters120 [the Monad, called also the “Double Dragon”] descend from the Spheres of Expectation.121 But they are like a roof with no walls, nor pillars to rest upon....

Man needs four Flames and three Fires to become one on Earth, and he requires the essence of the forty-nine Fires122 to be perfect. It is those who have deserted the Superior Spheres, the Gods of Will,123 who complete the Manu of illusion. For the “Double Dragon” has no hold upon the mere form. It is like the breeze where there is no tree or branch to receive and harbour it. It cannot affect the form where there is no agent of transmission [Manas, “Mind”] and the form knows it not.

In the highest worlds, the three are one,124 on Earth [at first] the one becomes two. They are like the two [side] lines of a triangle that has lost its bottom line—which is the third Fire.125

Now this requires some explanation before proceeding any further. To do so especially for the benefit of our Âryan Hindû brethren—whose Esoteric interpretations may differ from our own—we shall have to explain to them the foregoing by certain passages in their own exoteric books, namely, the Purânas. In the allegories of the latter, Brahmâ, who is collectively the Creative Force of the Universe, is thus described:

At the beginning of the Yugas [Cycles] ... possessed of the desire and of the power to create, and impelled by the potencies of what is to be created, again and again does he, at the outset of a Kalpa, put forth a similar creation.126

It is now proposed to examine the exoteric account in the Vishnu Purâna, and see how much it may agree or disagree with our Occult version.

Creation of Divine Beings in the Exoteric Accounts.

In the Vishnu Purâna, which is certainly the earliest of all the scriptures of that name, we find, as in all the others, Brahmâ, as the male God, assuming, for purposes of creation, “four Bodies invested by three qualities.”127 It is said:

In this manner, Maitreya, Jyotsnâ (dawn), Râtri (night), Ahan (day), and Sandhyâ (evening [twilight]) are the four bodies of Brahmâ.128

As Parâshara explains it, when Brahmâ wishes to create the world anew and construct progeny through his will, in the fourfold condition, or the four Orders of Beings, termed Gods (Dhyân Chohans), Demons129 (i.e., more material Devas), Progenitors (Pitris) and Men, “he collects [Yoga-like] his mind into itself” (Yûyuge).

Strange to say, he begins by creating Demons, who thus take precedence over the Angels or Gods. This is no incongruity, nor is it due to inconsistency, but has, like all the rest, a profound Esoteric meaning, quite clear to one free from Christian theological prejudice. He who bears in mind that the principle Mahat, or Intellect, the “Universal Mind” (literally the “Great”), which Esoteric Philosophy explains as the “Manifested Omniscience”—the “first product” of Pradhâna, Primordial Matter, as the Vishnu Purâna says, but the first Cosmic Aspect of Parabrahman or the Esoteric Sat, the Universal Soul,130 as Occultism teaches—is at the root of Self-Consciousness, will understand the reason why. The so-called Demons—who are Esoterically the Self-asserting and intellectually active Principle—are the positive pole of creation, so to say; hence, the first produced. This is in brief the process as narrated allegorically in the Purânas.

Having concentrated his mind into itself and the Quality of Darkness pervading Brahmâ’s assumed body, the Asuras, issuing from his Thigh, were first produced; after which, abandoning this body, it was transformed into Night.

Two important points are involved herein: (a) Primarily in the Rig Veda, the Asuras are shown as spiritual divine Beings; their etymology is derived from Asu, breath, the “Breath of God,” and they mean the same as the Supreme Spirit or the Zoroastrian Ahura. It is later on, for purposes of theology and dogma, that they are shown issuing from Brahmâ’s Thigh, and that their name began to be derived from a, privative, and Sura, a God, or “not-a-God,” and that they became the enemies of the Gods. (b) Every ancient Theogony without exception—from the Aryan and the Egyptian down to that of Hesiod—in the order of Cosmogonical evolution, places Night before Day; even Genesis, where “darkness is upon the face of the deep” before the “first day.” The reason for this is that every Cosmogony—except in the Secret Doctrine—begins by the “Secondary Creation” so-called; to wit, the Manifested Universe, the Genesis of which has to begin by a marked differentiation between the eternal Light of “Primary Creation,” whose mystery must remain for ever “Darkness” to the prying finite conception and intellect of the profane, and the Secondary Evolution of manifested visible Nature. The Veda contains the whole philosophy of that division, without having ever been correctly explained by our Orientalists, since it has never been understood by them.

Continuing to create, Brahmâ assumes another form, that of the Day, and creates from his Breath the Gods, who are endowed with the Quality of Goodness (Passivity).131 In his next body the Quality of great Passivity prevailed, which is also (negative) goodness, and from the side of that personage issued the Pitris, the Progenitors of men, because, as the text explains, Brahmâ “thought of himself [during the process] as the father of the world.”132 This is Kriyâ-shakti—the mysterious Yoga-power explained elsewhere. This body of Brahmâ when cast off became the Sandhyâ, Evening Twilight, the interval between Day and Night.

Finally Brahmâ assumed his last form pervaded by the Quality of Foulness.

And from this, Men, in whom foulness (or passion) predominates, were produced.

This body when cast off became the Dawn, or Morning Twilight—the Twilight of Humanity. Here Brahmâ stands Esoterically for the Pitris. He is collectively the Pitâ, “Father.”

The true Esoteric meaning of this allegory must now be explained. Brahmâ here symbolizes personally the Collective Creators of the World and Men—the Universe with all its numberless productions of things movable and (seemingly) immovable.133 He is collectively the Prajâpatis, the Lords of Being; and the four bodies typify the four Classes of Creative Powers or Dhyân Chohans, described in the Commentary on Shloka I, Stanza VII, in Volume I. The whole philosophy of the so-called “Creation” of the good and evil in this World, and of the whole Cycle of Manvantaric results therefrom, hangs on the correct comprehension of these Four Bodies of Brahmâ.

The reader will now be prepared to understand the real, the Esoteric significance of what follows. Moreover there is an important point to be cleared up. Christian Theology having arbitrarily settled and agreed that Satan with his Fallen Angels belonged to the earliest creation, Satan being the first-created, the wisest and most beautiful of God’s Archangels, the word was given, the key-note struck. Henceforth all the Pagan Scriptures were made to yield the same meaning, and all were shown to be demoniacal, and it was and is claimed that truth and fact belong to, and commence only with, Christianity. Even the Orientalists and Mythologists, some of them no Christians at all but “infidels,” or men of Science, entered, unconsciously to themselves and by the mere force of association of ideas and habit, into the theological groove.

Purely Brâhmanical considerations, based on greed of power and ambition, allowed the masses to remain in ignorance of great truths; and the same causes led the Initiates among the early Christians to remain silent, while those who had never known the truth disfigured the order of things, judging of the Hierarchy of “Angels” by their exoteric form. Thus, as the Asuras had become the rebellious inferior Gods fighting the higher ones in popular creeds, so the highest Archangel, in truth the Agathodæmon, the eldest benevolent Logos, became in theology the “Adversary” or Satan. But is this warranted by the correct interpretation of any old Scripture? The answer is: most certainly not. As the Mazdean Scriptures of the Zend Avesta, the Vendidâd and others correct and expose the later cunning shuffling of the Gods in the Hindû Pantheon, and restore through Ahura the Asuras to their legitimate place in Theogony, so the recent discoveries of the Chaldæan tablets vindicate the good name of the first divine Emanations. This is easily proved. Christian Angelology is directly and solely derived from that of the Pharisees, who brought their tenets from Babylonia. The Sadducees, the real guardians of the Laws of Moses, knew not of any Angels, opposing even the immortality of the human Soul (not the impersonal Spirit). In the Bible the only Angels spoken of are the “Sons of God” mentioned in Genesis vi—who are now regarded as the Nephilim, the Fallen Angels—and several Angels in human form, the “Messengers” of the Jewish God, whose own rank needs a closer analysis than heretofore given. As shown above, the early Akkadians called Ea Wisdom, which was disfigured by the later Chaldees and Semites into Tiamat, Tisalat and the Thalatth of Berosus, the female Sea Dragon, now Satan. Truly—”How art thou fallen [by the hand of man], O bright Star and Son of the Morning”!

Now what do the Babylonian accounts of “Creation,” as found on the Assyrian fragments of tiles, tell us; those very accounts upon which the Pharisees built their Angelology? Compare Mr. George Smith’s Assyrian Discoveries,134 and his Chaldean Account of Genesis.135 The Tablet with the story of the Seven Wicked Gods or Spirits, has the following account; we print the important passages in italics:

1. In the first days the evil Gods,

2. the angels who were in rebellion, who in the lower part of heaven

3. had been created,

4. they caused their evil work

5. devising with wicked heads ... etc.

Thus we are shown, as plainly as can be, on a fragment which remained unbroken, so that there can be no dubious reading, that the “Rebellious Angels” had been created in the “lower part of heaven,” i.e., that they belonged and do belong to a material plane of evolution, although as it is not the plane of which we are made cognizant through our senses, it remains generally invisible to us, and is thus regarded as subjective. Were the Gnostics so wrong, after this, in affirming that this our Visible World, and especially the Earth, had been created by Lower Angels, the inferior Elohim, of which, as they taught, the God of Israel was one? These Gnostics were nearer in time to the records of the Archaic Secret Doctrine, and therefore ought to be allowed to have known what it contained better than non-initiated Christians, who took upon themselves, hundreds of years later, to remodel and correct what was said. But let us see what the same Tablet says further on:

7. There were seven of them [the wicked gods].

Then follows the description of these, the fourth being a “serpent,” the phallic symbol of the Fourth Race in human Evolution.

15. The seven of them, messengers of the God Anu their king.

Now Anu belongs to the Chaldæan Trinity, and is identical with Sin, the “Moon,” in one aspect. And the Moon in the Hebrew Kabalah is the Argha of the seed of all material life, and is still more closely connected, kabalistically, with Jehovah, who is double-sexed, as Anu is. They are both represented in Esotericism, and viewed, from a dual aspect: male or spiritual, female or material, or Spirit and Matter, the two antagonistic principles. Hence the “Messengers of Anu,” who is Sin, the “Moon,” are shown, in lines 28 to 41, as being finally overpowered by the same Sin with the help of Bel, the Sun, and Ishtar, Venus. This is regarded as a contradiction by the Assyriologists, but it is simply metaphysics in the Esoteric teaching.

There is more than one interpretation, for there are seven keys to the mystery of the “Fall.” Moreover there are two “Falls” in Theology: the rebellion of the Archangels and their “Fall,” and the “Fall” of Adam and Eve. Thus the lower as well as the higher Hierarchies are charged with a supposed crime. The word “supposed” is the true and correct term, for in both cases it is founded on misconception. Both are considered in Occultism as Karmic effects, and both belong to the law of Evolution—intellectual and spiritual on the one hand, physical and psychic on the other. The “Fall” is a universal allegory. It sets forth at one end of the ladder of Evolution the “rebellion,” i.e., the action of differentiating intellection, or consciousness, on its various planes, seeking union with Matter; and at the other, the lower end, the rebellion of Matter against Spirit, or of action against spiritual inertia. And here lies the germ of an error which has had such disastrous effects on the intelligence of civilized societies for over 1,800 years. In the original allegory it is Matter—hence the more material Angels—which was regarded as the conqueror of Spirit, or the Archangels who “fell” on this plane.

They of the flaming sword [or animal passions] had put to flight the Spirits of Darkness.

Yet it is the latter who fought for the supremacy of the conscious and divine spirituality on Earth and failed, succumbing to the power of Matter. But in theological dogma we see the reverse. It is Michael, “who is like unto God,” the representative of Jehovah, who is the Leader of the Celestial Hosts—as Lucifer, in Milton’s fancy, is of the Infernal Hosts—who has the best of Satan. It is true that the nature of Michael depends upon that of his Creator and Master. Who the latter is, one may find out by carefully studying the allegory of the “War in Heaven” with the astronomical key. As shown by Bentley, the “War of the Titans against the Gods” in Hesiod, and also the War of the Asuras, or the Târakâmaya, against the Devas in Purânic legend, are identical in all save the names. The aspects of the stars show—Bentley taking the year 945 b.c. as the nearest date for such conjunction—that:

All the planets, except Saturn, were on the same side of the heavens as the Sun and Moon.

And hence were his opponents. And yet it is Saturn, or the Jewish “Moon-God,” who is shown as prevailing, both by Hesiod and Moses, neither of whom was understood. Thus it was that the real meaning became distorted.