Names such as Adam‐Adami, used by Dr. Chwolsohn in his _Nabathean
Agriculture_ and derided by M. Renan, may prove little to the profane. To
the Occultist, however, once that the term is found in a work of such
immense antiquity as that above cited, it proves a good deal. It proves,
for instance, that Adami was a manifold symbol, originating with the Âryan
people, as the root word shows, and having been taken from them by the
Semites and the Turanians—as many other things were.
Adam‐Adami is a generic compound name as old as language is. The Secret
Doctrine teaches that Ad‐i was the name given by the Âryans to the first
_speaking_ race of mankind, in this Round. Hence the terms Adonim and
Adonai (the ancient plural form of the word Adon), which the Jews applied
to their Jehovah and Angels, who were simply the first spiritual and
ethereal sons of the Earth, and the God Adonis, who in his many variations
stood for the “First Lord.” Adam is the Sanskrit Âdi‐Nâth, also meaning
First Lord, as Âd‐Îshvara, or any Ad (the First) prefixed to an adjective
or substantive. The reason for this is that such truths were a common
inheritance. It was a revelation received by the _first_ mankind before
that time which, in biblical phraseology, is called “the period of one
_lip_ and word,” or speech; knowledge expanded by man’s own intuition
later on, still later hidden from profanation under an adequate symbology.
The author of the _Qabbalah_, according to the philosophical writings of
Ibn Gebirol, shows the Israelites using Ad‐onaï (A Do Na Y), “Lord,”
instead of Eh’yeh, “I am,” and YHVH, and adds that, while Adonaï is
rendered “Lord” in the _Bible_,
The lowest designation, or the Deity in Nature, the more general
term Elohim, is translated God.(1031)
A curious work was translated in 1860 or thereabout, by the Orientalist
Chwolsohn, and presented to ever‐incredulous and flippant Europe under the
innocent title of _Nabathean Agriculture_. In the opinion of the
translator that archaic volume _is a complete initiation_ into the
mysteries of the Pre‐Adamite nations, on the authority of _undeniably
authentic documents_. It is an invaluable compendium, the full epitome of
the doctrines, arts and sciences, not only of the Chaldæans, but also of
the Assyrians and Canaanites of the pre‐historic ages.(1032) These
Nabatheans—as some critics thought—were simply the Sabæans, or Chaldæan
star‐worshippers. The work is a retranslation from the Arabic, into which
language it was at first translated from the Chaldæan.
Masoudi, the Arabian historian, speaks of these Nabatheans, and explains
their origin in this wise:
After the Deluge [?] the nations established themselves in various
countries. Among these were the Nabatheans, who founded the city
of Babylon, and were those descendants of Ham who settled in the
same province under the leadership of Nimrod, the son of Cush, who
was the son of Ham and great‐grandson of Noah. This took place at
the time when Nimrod received the governorship of Babylonia as the
delegate of Dzahhak named Biourasp.(1033)
The translator, Chwolsohn, finds that the assertions of this historian are
in perfect accord with those of Moses in _Genesis_; while more irreverent
critics might express the opinion that for this very reason their truth
should be suspected. It is useless, however, to argue the point, which is
of no value in the present question. The weather‐beaten, long‐since‐buried
problem, and the difficulty of accounting, on any logical ground, for the
phenomenal derivation of millions of people of various races, of many
civilized nations and tribes, from _three_ couples—Noah’s sons and their
wives—in 346 years(1034) after the Deluge, may be left to the Karma of the
author of _Genesis_, whether he is called Moses or Ezra. That which is
interesting in the work under notice, however, are its contents, the
doctrines enunciated in it, which are again, if read Esoterically, almost
all of them identical with the Secret Teachings.
Quatremère suggested that this book might have been simply a copy made
under Nebuchadnezzar II from some Hamitic treatise, “infinitely more
ancient,” while the author maintains, on internal and external evidence,
that its Chaldæan original was written out from the oral discourses and
teachings of a wealthy Babylonian landowner, named Qû‐tâmy, who had used
for those lectures still more ancient materials. The first Arabic
translation is placed by Chwolsohn so far back as the thirteenth century
B.C. On the first page of this “revelation,” the author, or amanuensis,
Qû‐tâmy, declares that “the doctrines propounded therein, _were originally
told by Saturn ... to the Moon, who communicated them to her idol,_” _and
the idol revealed them to her devotee, the writer_—the Adept Scribe of
that work—Qû‐tâmy.
The details given by the God for the benefit and instruction of mortals,
show periods of incalculable duration and a series of numberless kingdoms
and Dynasties that preceded the appearance on Earth of Adami (the “red‐
earth”). These periods, as might have been expected, have roused the
defenders of the chronology of the biblical dead‐letter meaning almost to
fury. De Rougemont was the first to make a _levée_‐in‐arms against the
translator. He reproaches him with _sacrificing_ Moses to anonymous
authors.(1035) Berosus, he urges, however great were _his chronological
errors_, was at least in perfect accord with the prophet with regard to
the first men, since he speaks of Alorus‐Adam, of Xisuthrus‐Noah, and of
Belus‐Nimrod, etc. Therefore, he adds, the work must be an _apocryphon_ to
be ranged with its contemporaries—the _Fourth Book of Esdras_, the _Book
of Enoch_, the _Sibylline Oracles_, and the _Book of Hermes_—_every one of
these dating no further back than two or three centuries B.C._ Ewald came
down still harder on Chwolsohn, and finally M. Renan, who in the _Revue
Germanique_(1036) asks him to show reason why his _Nabathean Agriculture_
should not be the fraudulent work of some Jew of the third or fourth
century of our era? It can hardly be otherwise—argues the romancer of the
_Vie de Jésus_, since, in this _in‐folio_ on Astrology and Sorcery:
We recognize in the personages introduced Qû‐tâmy, all the
patriarchs of the biblical legends, such as Adam‐Adami, Anouka‐
Noah, and his Ibrahim‐Abraham, etc.
But this is no reason, since Adam and others are generic names. Meanwhile
it is humbly submitted that, all things considered, an _apocryphon_—if
even of the third century A.D., instead of the thirteenth century B.C., is
old enough to appear _genuine_ as a document, and so satisfy the demands
of the most exacting archæologist and critic. For even admitting, for
argument’s sake, that this literary relic has been compiled by “some Jew
of the third century of our era”—what of that? Leaving the credibility of
its doctrines for a moment aside, why should it be less entitled to a
hearing, or less instructive as reflecting older opinions, than any other
religious work, also a “compilation from old texts” or oral tradition—of
the same or even a later age? In such case we should have to reject and
call “apocryphal” the _Kurân_—three centuries later, though we know it to
have sprung, Minerva‐like, direct from the brain of the Arabian prophet;
and we should have to pooh‐pooh all the information we can get from the
_Talmud_, which, in its present form, was also compiled from older
materials, and is not earlier than the ninth century of our era.
This curious “Bible” of the Chaldæan Adept and the various criticisms upon
it (as in Chwolsohn’s translation) are noticed, because it has an
important bearing upon a great portion of the present work. With the
exception of the contention of M. Renan, an iconoclast on principle—so
pointedly called by Jules Lemaître “_le Paganini du néant_”—the worst
fault found with the work is, it would seem, that the _apocryphon_
pretends to have been communicated _as a revelation_ to an Adept by, and
from, the “idol of the Moon,” who received it from “Saturn.” Hence, very
naturally, it is “a fairy tale all round.” To this there is but one
answer: It is no more a fairy tale than the _Bible_, and if one falls, the
other must follow it. Even the mode of divination through “the idol of the
Moon” is the same as that practised by David, Saul and the High Priests of
the Jewish Tabernacle by means of the Teraphim.
The _Nabathean Agriculture_ is a compilation indeed; it is no
_apocryphon_, but the repetition of the tenets of the Secret Doctrine
under the exoteric Chaldæan form of national symbols, for the purpose of
“cloaking” the tenets, just as the _Books of Hermes_ and the _Purânas_ are
like attempts by Egyptians and Hindûs. The work was as well known in
antiquity as it was during the Middle Ages. Maimonides speaks of it, and
refers more than once to this Chaldæo‐Arabic MS., calling the Nabatheans
by the name of their co‐religionists, the “star‐worshippers,” or Sabæans,
but yet failing to see in the disfigured word “Nabathean” the mystic name
of the caste devoted to Nebo, the God of _Secret_ Wisdom, which shows on
its face that the Nabatheans were an Occult Brotherhood.(1037) The
Nabatheans who, according to the Persian Yezidi, originally came to Syria
from Busrah, were the degenerate members of that fraternity; still their
religion, even at that late day, was purely kabalistic.(1038) Nebo is the
Deity of the Planet Mercury, and Mercury is the God of Wisdom, or Hermes,
or Budha, which the Jews called Kokab (ככב), “the Lord on high, the
aspiring,” and the Greeks Nabo (Ναβώ), hence Nabatheans. Notwithstanding
that Maimonides calls their doctrines “heathenish foolishness” and their
archaic literature “_Sabæorum fœtum_,” he places their “agriculture,” the
Bible of Qû‐tâmy, in the first rank of archaic literature; and Abarbanel
praises it in unmeasured terms. Spencer,(1039) quoting the latter, speaks
of it as that “most excellent oriental work,” adding that by Nabatheans,
the Sabæans, the Chaldæans, and the Egyptians, in short all those nations
_against whom the laws of Moses were most severely enacted_, have to be
understood.
Nebo, the oldest God of Wisdom of Babylonia and Mesopotamia, was identical
with the Hindû Budha and the Hermes‐Mercury of the Greeks. A slight change
in the sexes of the parents is the only alteration. As Budha was the Son
of Soma (the Moon) in India, and of the wife of Brihaspati (Jupiter), so
Nebo was the son of Zarpanitu (the Moon) and of Merodach, who became
Jupiter, after having been a Sun‐god. As Mercury the Planet, Nebo was the
“overseer” among the seven Gods of the Planets; and as the personification
of the Secret Wisdom he was Nabin, a seer and a prophet. Moses is made to
die and disappear on the mount sacred to Nebo. This shows him to have been
an Initiate, and a priest of that God under another name; for this God of
Wisdom was the great Creative Deity, and was worshipped as such. And this
not only at Borsippa in his gorgeous Temple, or Planet‐tower; he was
likewise adored by the Moabites, the Canaanites, the Assyrians, and
throughout the whole of Palestine. Then why not by the Israelites? “The
planetary temple of Babylon” had its “Holy of Holies” within the shrine of
Nebo, the Prophet‐God of Wisdom. We are told in the Hibbert Lectures:
The ancient Babylonians had an intercessor between men and the
gods ... and Nebo, was the “proclaimer” or “prophet,” as he made
known the desire of his father Merodach.(1040)
Nebo is a Creator, like Budha, of the Fourth, and also of the Fifth, Race.
For the former starts a new race of Adepts, and the latter, the Solar‐
Lunar Dynasty, or the men of these Races and Round. Both are the Adams of
their respective creatures. Adam‐Adami is a personation of the _dual_
Adam: of the paradigmatic Adam‐Kadmon, the Creator, and of the lower Adam,
the terrestrial, who, as the Syrian Kabalists have it, had only Nephesh,
the “breath of life,” but _no Living Soul_, until after his Fall.
If, therefore, Renan persists in regarding the Chaldæan Scriptures—or what
remains of them—as apocryphal, it is quite immaterial to truth and fact.
There are other Orientalists who may be of a different opinion; and even
were they not, it would still really matter very little. These doctrines
contain the teachings of Esoteric Philosophy, and this must suffice. To
those who understand nothing of symbology it may appear astrolatry, pure
and simple, or to him who would conceal the Esoteric Truth, even
“heathenish foolishness.” Maimonides, however, while expressing scorn for
the Esotericism in the religion of other nations, confessed Esotericism
and Symbology in his own, preached silence and secrecy upon the true
meaning of Mosaic sayings, and thus came to grief. The Doctrines of
Qû‐tâmy, the Chaldæan, are, in short, the allegorical rendering of the
religion of the earliest nations of the Fifth Race.
Why then should M. Renan treat the name “Adam‐Adami” with such academical
contempt? The author of the _Origins of Christianity_ evidently knows
nothing of the origins of Pagan symbolism or of Esotericism either,
otherwise he would have known that the name Adam‐Adami was a form of a
universal symbol, referring, _even with the Jews_, not to one man, but to
four distinct humanities or mankinds. This is very easily proven.
The Kabalists teach the existence of four distinct Adams, or the
transformation of four consecutive Adams, the emanations from the
Dyooknah, or Divine Phantom, of the Heavenly Man, an ethereal combination
of Neshamah, the highest Soul or Spirit; this Adam having, of course,
neither a gross human body, nor a _body of desire_. This Adam is the
Prototype (Tzure) of the second Adam. That they represent our Five Races,
is certain, as everyone can see by their description in the _Kabalah_. The
first is the Perfect Holy Adam, “a shadow that disappeared” (the Kings of
Edom), produced from the divine Tzelem (Image); the second is called the
Protoplastic Androgyne Adam of the future terrestrial and separated Adam;
the third Adam is the man made of “dust” (the first, Innocent Adam); and
the fourth, is the supposed forefather of our own race—the Fallen Adam.
See, however, the admirably clear description of these in Isaac Myer’s
_Qabbalah_. He gives only four Adams, because of the Kings of Edom, no
doubt, and adds:
The fourth Adam ... was clothed with skin, flesh, nerves, etc.
This answers to the Lower _Nephesh_ and _Guff_, _i.e._, body,
united. He has the animal power of reproduction and continuance of
species.(1041)
This is the _human_ Root‐Race.
It is just at this point that the modern Kabalists—led into error by the
long generations of Christian Mystics who have tampered with the
kabalistic records wherever they could—diverge from the Occultists in
their interpretations, and take the later thought for the earlier idea.
The original _Kabalah_ was entirely metaphysical, and had no concern with
animal, or terrestrial, sexes; the later _Kabalah_ has suffocated the
divine ideal under the heavy phallic element. The Kabalists say: “God made
man male and female.” Says the author of the _Qabbalah_:
Among the Qabbalists, the necessity to continued creation and
existence is called the Balance.(1042)
And being without this “Balance,” connected with Maqom (the mysterious
“Place”),(1043) even the First Race is not, as we have seen, recognized by
the Sons of the Fifth Adam. From the highest Heavenly Man, the Upper Adam
who is “male‐female” or Androgyne, down to the Adam of dust, these
personified symbols are all connected with sex and procreation. With the
Eastern Occultists it is entirely the reverse. The sexual relation they
consider as a “Karma” pertaining only to the mundane relation of man, who
is dominated by Illusion, a thing to be put aside, the moment that the
person becomes “wise.” They considered it a most fortunate circumstance if
the Guru (teacher) found in his pupil an aptitude for the pure life of
Brahmâchârya. Their dual symbols were to them but the poetical imagery of
the sublime correlation of creative cosmic forces. And this ideal
conception is found beaming like a golden ray upon each idol, however
coarse and grotesque, in the crowded galleries of the sombre fanes of
India and other mother‐lands of cults.
This will be demonstrated in the following Section.
Meanwhile, it may be added that, with the Gnostics, the second Adam also
emanates from the Primeval Man, the Ophite Adamas, in “whose image he is
made”; the third, from this second—an Androgyne. The latter is symbolized
in the sixth and seventh pairs of the male‐female Æons, Amphain‐Essumen
(Ἀμφαὶν Ἐσσουμὲν), and Vananin‐Lamertade (Οὐανανίν Λαμερτάδε)—Father and
Mother(1044)—while the fourth Adam, or Race, is represented by a Priapean
monster. The latter—a Post‐Christian fancy—is the degraded copy of the
Ante‐Christian Gnostic symbol of the “Good One,” or “He, _who created
before anything existed_,” the Celestial Priapus—truly born from Venus and
Bacchus _when that God returned from his expedition into India_, for Venus
and Bacchus are the post‐types of Aditi and the Spirit. The later Priapus,
one, however, with Agathodæmon, the Gnostic Saviour, and even with
Abraxas, is no longer the glyph for _abstract creative_ Power, but
symbolizes the four Adams, or Races, the fifth being represented by the
_five_ branches cut off from the Tree of Life on which the old man stands
in the Gnostic gems. The number of the Root‐Races was recorded in the
ancient Greek temples by the seven vowels, of which _five_ were framed in
a panel in the Initiation Halls of the Adyta. The Egyptian glyph for it
was a hand with five fingers spread out, the fifth or little finger being
only half‐grown, and also _five_ “N’s”—hieroglyphs standing for that
letter. The Romans used the five vowels A E I O V in their fanes; and this
archaic symbol was adopted during the Middle Ages as a motto by the House
of the Hapsburgs. _Sic transit gloria!_