Chapter XXVII: Introduction (4)

Since the publication of the former edition of his work, twenty-three years ago, Mr. King has come across and read the _Pistis Sophia_. The discovery of this, the only remaining Gnostic Gospel, or rather, Gospel fragment, is attributed to Schwartze, and the Latin translation to Petermann (in 1853). But Mr. King does not seem to be aware that as far back as 1843, another and ampler copy than that in the British Museum was in the hands of a Russian Raskolnik (dissident), a Cossack, who lived and married in Abyssinia; and another is in the possession of an Englishman, an Occultist, now in the United States, who brought it from Syria. It seems a pity that in the interim Mr. King did not also read _Isis Unveiled_, by H. P. Blavatsky, published by Bouton in New York in 1876, as its perusal would have saved him a somewhat absurd and ludicrous blunder. In his _Preface_, Mr. King says:—“There seems to be reason for suspecting that the Sibyl of Esoteric Buddhism drew the first notions of her new religion from the analysis of the _inner man_, as set forth in my first edition.”[122] The only person to whom this passage could apply is one of the Editors, the author of _Isis Unveiled_. And this, her first publication, contains the same and only doctrine she has always, or ever, promulgated. _Isis Unveiled_ has passed through eight editions, and has been read by many thousands of persons; and not only they, but everyone who is not strangely ignorant of the very literature with which it was Mr. King’s business to make himself conversant, are perfectly aware that the two large volumes which compose that work are entirely devoted to a defence of the philosophy, science, and religion of the ancients, especially of the old Aryans, whose religion can hardly be called a “new” one, still less—“Esoteric Buddhism.” If properly spelt, however, the latter word, or Buddhism, ought to be written with one “d,” as in this case it means Wisdom. But “Budhism,” or the wisdom-religion of the Aryans, was still less a religion, in the exoteric sense, than is Buddhism, but rather a philosophy. In that part of _Isis Unveiled_ which treats of the Gnostics, Mr. King will find a few quotations from his writings side by side with quotations from other writers on the same subject; but he will find no “new religion” there, or anywhere else, in the works of H. P. Blavatsky. And, if anyone drew the “first notions” of their religion from his “analysis of the inner man,” it must have been the early Aryans, who, unfortunately, have neglected to acknowledge the obligation. What makes Mr. King’s self-complacency the more ridiculous, is that in his preface he himself accuses someone else of “the grave error of representing their (the Gnostics’) doctrines as _novel_, and the pure _inventions_ of the persons who preached them.” And in another place he confesses that he owes to Matter the first idea which has now become a settled conviction with him, that “the seeds of the _gnosis_ were originally of Indian growth.” If Matter “faintly discerned” this truth, on the other hand Bailly, Dupuis, and others had seen it quite clearly, and had declared it most emphatically. So that Mr. King’s “discovery” is neither very new nor very original.

-----

Footnote 122:

This modest assumption is followed by the generous promise to
furnish “investigators of the same order” as the supposed “Sibyl,”
with “a still more profound theosophy.” This is extremely
considerate and kind. But if it is _Pistis-Sophia_ which the
author had in his mind, then he had better apply to Theosophists
for the explanation of the most recondite points in that gnostic
fragment, while translating it, as he proposes doing from Latin.
For though the world of the Orientalists “of the same order” as
_himself_, may labour under the mistaken impression that no one
except themselves knew or know anything about _Pistis-Sophia_ till
1853—Theosophists know better. Does Mr. King really imagine that
no one besides himself knows anything about the Gnostics “and
their remains,” or what _he_ knows is the only correct thing to
know? Strange delusion, if so; yet quite a harmless one, we
confess.

-----

Mr. King must be aware that of late years immense additions have been made to western knowledge of eastern philosophies and religions—a new region in ancient literature having, in fact, been opened up by the labours of Orientalists, both European and Eastern. A study of these Oriental systems throws a strong though often a false light upon the inner meaning of Gnostic symbolism and ideas generally, which Mr. King acknowledges to have come from Indian sources; and certainly the reader has a right to expect a little more knowledge in that direction from a writer of Mr. King’s pretensions, than is displayed. For example, in the section about Buddhism in the work before us: one is tempted sometimes to ask whether it is flippancy or superficiality that is the matter with the author—when he calls the ancient Indian gymnosophists “fakirs,” and confounds them with Buddhists. Surely he need hardly be told that fakirs are Mahomedans, and that the Gymnosophists he mentions were Brahmin Yogis.

The work, however, is a valuable one in its way; but the reader should not forget that “there seems reason for suspecting” that the author does not always know exactly what he is talking about, whenever he strays too far from Archæology, on which he is no doubt an authority.

---

THE JEWISH WORLD enters bravely enough (in its issue of the 11th November 1887) on its new character of professor of symbology and History. It accuses in no measured terms one of the editors of LUCIFER of ignorance; and criticises certain expressions used in our October number, in a foot-note inserted to explain why the “Son of the Morning” LUCIFER is called in Mr. G. Massey’s little poem, “Lady of Light.” The writer objects, we see, to Lucifer-Venus being called in one of its aspects “the Jewish Astoreth;” or to her having ever been offered cakes by the Jews. As explained in a somewhat confused sentence: “There _was no Jewish Astoreth_, though the Syrian goddess, Ashtoreth, or Astarte, often appears in Biblical literature, the moon goddess, the complement of Baal, the Sun God.”

This, no doubt, is extremely learned and conveys quite _new_ information. Yet such an astounding statement as that the whole of the foot-note in LUCIFER is “pure imagination and bad history” is very risky indeed. For it requires no more than a stroke or two of our pen to make the whole edifice of this denial tumble on the _Jewish World_ and mangle it very badly. Our contemporary has evidently forgotten the wise proverb that bids one to let “sleeping dogs lie,” and therefore, it is with the lofty airs of superiority that he informs his readers that though the Jews in Palestine lived surrounded with (? _sic_) this pagan form of worship, and _may, at times_, (?!) have wandered towards it, they HAD NOTHING IN THEIR WORSHIP IN COMMON WITH CHALDEAN OR SYRIAN BELIEFS IN MULTIPLICITY OF DEITIES? (!!)

This is what any impartial reader might really term “bad history,” and every Bible worshipper describe as a _direct lie_ given to the Lord God of Israel. It is more than _suppressio veri suggestio falsi_, for it is simply a cool denial of facts in the face of both Bible and History. We advise our critic of the _Jewish World_ to turn to _his_ own prophets, to Jeremiah, foremost of all. We open “Scripture” and find in it: “the Lord God” while accusing _his_ “backsliding Israel and treacherous Judah” of following in “the ways of Egypt and of Assyria,” of drinking the waters of Sihor, and “serving strange Gods” enumerating his grievances in this wise:

“According _to the number of thy cities_ are thy gods, O Judah,
(Jer. ii. 28.).

“Ye have turned back to the iniquities of your forefathers who
went after other gods to serve them (xi.) ... _according to the
number of the streets of Jerusalem_ have ye set up altars to that
shameful thing, even altars unto Baal” (_Ib._).

So much for Jewish _monotheism_. And is it any more “pure imagination” to say that the Jews offered cakes to their Astoreth and called her “Queen of Heaven”? Then the “Lord God” must, indeed, be guilty of more than “a delicate expansion of facts” when thundering to, and through, Jeremiah:—

“Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah, and in the
streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers
kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough TO MAKE CAKES _to
the Queen of Heaven_, and to pour out drink offerings _unto the
gods_.” (Jer. vii. 17-18).

“The Jews _may_ AT TIMES” only (?) have wandered towards pagan forms of worship but “had _nothing in common_ in it with Syrian beliefs in multiplicity of deities.” Had they not? Then the ancestors of the editors of the _Jewish World_ must have been the victims of “suggestion,” when, snubbing Jeremiah (and not entirely without good reason),they declared to him:

“As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the
Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do
whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense
unto the Queen of Heaven[123] ... _as we have done, we_, AND OUR
FATHERS, _our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and
in the streets of Jerusalem_, for _then_ had we plenty of
victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But _since we left off
to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven_, and to _pour out drink
offerings unto her_ ... and (_to_) _make her cakes to worship her
... we have wanted all things_, and have been consumed by the
sword and by the famine....” (Jer. xliv. 16, 17, 18, 19).

-----

Footnote 123:

Astoreth-Diana, Isis, Melita, Venus, etc., etc.

-----

Thus, according to their own confession, it is not “at times” that the Jews made cakes for, and worshipped Astoreth and the strange gods, but constantly: doing, moreover, _as their forefathers_, kings and princes _did_.

“_Bad_ history”? And what was the “golden calf” but the sacred heifer, the symbol of the “Great Mother,” first the planet Venus, and then the moon? For the esoteric doctrine holds (as the Mexicans held) that Venus, the morning star, was _created before the sun and moon; metaphorically_, of course, not astronomically,[124] the assumption being based upon, and meaning that which the _Nazars_ and the Initiate alone understood among the Jews, but that the writers of the _Jewish World_ are not supposed to know. For the same reason the Chaldeans maintained that the moon was produced before the sun (_see Babylon—Account of Creation, by George Smith_). The morning star, Lucifer-Venus was dedicated to that Great Mother symbolized by the heifer or the “Golden Calf.” For, as says Mr. G. Massey in his lecture on “The Hebrews and their Creations,” “This (the Golden Calf) being of either sex, it supplied a twin-type for Venus, as Hathor or Ishtar (Astoreth), the double star, that was male at rising, and female at sunset” She is the “Celestial Aphrodite,” _Venus Victrix_ νιχηφόρος associated with _Ares_ (see Pausanias i, 8, 4, 11, 25, 1).

-----

Footnote 124:

Because the stars and planets are the symbols and houses of Angels
and Elohim, who were, of course, “created,” or evoluted before the
physical or cosmic sun or moon. “The sun god was called the child
of the moon god Sin, in Assyria, and the lunar god Taht, is called
the father of Osiris, the sun god ‘in Egypt.’” (G. Massey.)

-----

We are told that “happily for them (the Jews) there was no Jewish Astoreth.” The _Jewish World_ has yet to learn, we see, that there would have been no Greek Venus Aphrodite; no _Ourania_, her earlier appellation; nor would she have been confounded with the Assyrian Mylitta (Herod, 1, 199; Pausan., 1, 14, 7; Hesiod, Μυληταν την Ουρανιαν Ασσυριοι) had it not been for the Phœnicians and other Semites. We say the “Jewish Astoreth,” and we maintain what we say, on the authority of the Iliad, the Odyssey, of Renan, and many others. Venus Aphrodite is one with the Astarte, Astoreth, etc. of the Phœnicians, and she is one (as a planet) with “Lucifer” the “Morning Star.” So far back as the days of Homer, she was confounded with _Kypris_, an Oriental goddess brought by the Phœnician Semites from their Asiatic travels (_Iliad_, V, 330, 422, 260). Her worship appears first at Cythere, a Phœnician settlement depôt or trade-establishment (_Odys._, VIII. 362.; Walcker, _griech. götterl._ I, 666.) Herodotus shows that the sanctuary of Ascalon, in Syria, was the most ancient of the fanes of Aphrodite Ourania (I, 105): and Decharme tells us in his _Mythologie de la Grèce Antique_, that whenever the Greeks alluded to the origin of Aphrodite they designated her as _Ourania_, an epithet translated from a _semitic word_, as Jupiter _Epouranios_ of the Phœnician inscriptions, was the _Samemroum_ of Philo of Byblos, according to Renan (_Mission de Phenicie_). Astoreth was a goddess of generation, presiding at human birth (as Jehovah was _god of generation_, foremost of all). She was the moon-goddess, and a planet at the same time, whose worship originated with the Phœnicians and Semites. It flourished most in the Phœnician settlements and colonies in Sicily, at Eryax. There hosts of _Hetairae_ were attached to her temples, as hosts of _Kadeshim_, called by a more sincere name in the Bible, were, to the house of the Lord, “where the women wove hangings for the grove” (II. Kings, xxiii, 7). All this shows well the Semitic provenance of Astoreth-Venus in her capacity of “great Mother.” Let us pause. We advise sincerely the _Jewish World_ to abstain from throwing stones at other peoples’ beliefs, so long as its own faith is but a house of glass. And though Jeremy Taylor may think that “to be proud of one’s learning is the greatest ignorance,” yet, in this case it is but simple justice to say that it is really desirable for our friends the Jews that the writer in LUCIFER of the criticised note about Astoreth _should know less_ of history and the Bible, and her unlucky critic in the _Jewish World_ learn a little more about it.

“ADVERSARY.”

=THEOSOPHICAL= <br> =AND MYSTIC PUBLICATIONS=

THE THEOSOPHIST for October opens with the first of a series of articles on the “Elohistic Cosmogony.” The views put forward by the writer are certainly both striking and original, and, although Dr. Pratt diverges very considerably from the recognised standard of kabalistic orthodoxy, his interpretation of the Jewish version of cosmic evolution will assuredly excite considerable interest.

Following on Dr. Pratt’s learned article, come a few—unfortunately, too few—pages of extremely interesting notes on the Folk-lore of the Himalayan tribes, contributed by Captain Banon. The _Theosophist_ has often been indebted to Captain Banon for similar notes respecting such little known tribes and people; and it is much to be regretted that the many members of the Theosophical Society who reside in or visit such out-of-the-way places, do not make it a rule to collect these traditions and send them for publication in the _Theosophist_ or one of the other Theosophical magazines.

Dr. Hartmann continues his series of “Rosicrucian Letters,” with a number of extracts from the papers of Karl von Eckartshausen, who died in 1792. Dr. Hartmann deserves the gratitude of all students for rendering accessible these records and notes of past generations of “seekers after the Truth.”

Dr. Buck contributes a pithy and thoughtful article on “The Soul Problem,” and Mr. Lazarus continues his exposition of the kabalistic doctrine of the Microcosm. Besides these there are further instalments of two valuable translations from Hindu works of great antiquity and authority; the “Crest Jewel of Wisdom,” by Sankaracharya and the “Kaivalyanita.” It is much to be desired that one of our Hindu brothers, who adds to a knowledge of his own mystic literature, an acquaintance with Western modes of thought and expression, would devote a series of articles to the exposition of the fundamental standpoint and ideas of such works as these. Such an article would add enormously to the value of these translations to the Western world.

In the _November_ number, Dr. Pratt takes up the _Jehovistic_ cosmogony, which he contrasts and compares with the _Elohistic_ version already referred to. In his view, the Jehovistic teaching embodies the conception of the world as “created” and “ruled” by an _extra-natural_ and _personal_ deity, as opposed to the more philosophical and pantheistic conception of the earlier Elohistic writers.

Under the title of _An Ancient Weapon_, this issue contains an instructive account of the evocation of certain astral forces according to the ancient Vedic rites. As here described, the _evil intention_, with which the rite is performed, transforms it into a ceremony of _Black Magic_, but this does not render the account any less valuable.

This is followed by the first of a series of articles on _The Allegory of the Zoroastrian Cosmogony_, which promises to furnish much food for thought and study.

_Rosicrucian Letters_ contains this time an extract from an old MS., headed _The Temple of Solomon_, which is well worthy of careful attention.

Besides these we have a sketch of the life and writings of Madvachary, the great teacher of Southern India, and some further testimonies to the fact of “self-levitation” from eye-witnesses. Rama Prasad gives some most valuable details of the “Science of Breathing,” one of the most curious branches of occult physics, while the remainder of the number is occupied by an article on “Tetragrammaton,” which may be interesting to students of the Kabbala, and continuations of the “Kabbala and the Microcosm,” and of the translations from Indian books mentioned in connection with the October number.

These two numbers contain much valuable matter and well maintain the reputation which the _Theosophist_ originally gained for itself.

---

In THE PATH for October we notice especially the following articles:

_Nature’s Scholar_, a most poetically-conceived and well-worked-out Idyll, by J. C. Ver Plank, in which the underlying occult truth is presented to the reader in a most attractive form.

Following this is a much needed warning against the dangers of _Astral Intoxication_. Admirably expressed, it points out the true, and indicates the false, path with great clearness; and we desire to call the earnest attention of such of our readers as are engaged in _psychic_ development to its importance.

“Pilgrim” contributes some further _Thoughts in Solitude_, the leading idea of which may be indicated by its concluding lines, which are quoted from Sir Philip Sydney of heroic fame:

“Then farewell, World! thy uttermost I see,
Eternal Love, maintain thy life in me!”

_Tea-Table Talk_ is even more interesting and suggestive than usual, and, besides those above mentioned, this well-filled number contains