The Secret Doctrine of the Âryan East is found repeated under Egyptian
symbolism and phraseology in the Books of Hermes. At, or near, the
beginning of the present century, all the books called Hermetic were, in
the opinion of the average man of Science, unworthy of serious attention.
They were set down and loudly proclaimed as simply a collection of tales,
of fraudulent pretences and most absurd claims. They “never existed before
the Christian era,” it was said: “they were all written with the triple
object of speculation, deceiving and pious fraud;” they were all, even the
best of them, silly apocrypha.(45) In this respect the nineteenth century
proved a most worthy scion of the eighteenth, for, in the age of Voltaire
as well as in this century, everything, save what emanated direct from the
Royal Academy, was false, superstitious, foolish. Belief in the wisdom of
the Ancients was laughed to scorn, perhaps more so even than it is now.
The very thought of accepting as authentic the works and vagaries of “a
false Hermes, a false Orpheus, a false Zoroaster,” of false Oracles, false
Sibyls, and a thrice false Mesmer and his absurd fluid, was tabooed all
along the line. Thus all that had its genesis outside the learned and
dogmatic precincts of Oxford and Cambridge,(46) or the Academy of France,
was denounced in those days as “unscientific,” and “ridiculously absurd.”
This tendency has survived to the present day.
Nothing can be further from the intention of any true Occultist—who stands
possessed, by virtue of his higher psychic development, of instruments of
research far more penetrating in their power than any as yet in the hands
of physical experimentalists—than to look unsympathetically on the efforts
that are being made in the area of physical enquiry. The exertions and
labours undertaken to solve as many as possible of the problems of Nature
have always been holy in his sight. The spirit in which Sir Isaac Newton
remarked that at the end of all his astronomical work he felt a mere child
picking up shells beside the Ocean of Knowledge, is one of reverence for
the boundlessness of Nature which Occult Philosophy itself cannot eclipse.
And it may freely be recognised that the attitude of mind which this
famous simile describes is one which fairly represents that of the great
majority of _genuine_ Scientists in regard to all the phenomena of the
physical plane of Nature. In dealing with this they are often caution and
moderation itself. They observe facts with a patience that cannot be
surpassed. They are slow to cast these into theories, with a prudence that
cannot be too highly commended. And, subject to the limitations under
which they observe Nature, they are beautifully accurate in the record of
their observations. Moreover, it may be conceded further that modern
Scientists are exceedingly careful not to affirm negations. They may say
it is immensely improbable that any discovery will ever conflict with such
or such a theory, now supported by such and such an aggregation of
recorded facts. But even in reference to the broadest
generalizations—which pass into a dogmatic form only in brief popular text
books of scientific knowledge—the tone of “Science” itself, if that
abstraction may be held to be embodied in the persons of its most
distinguished representatives, is one of reserve and often of modesty.
Far, therefore, from being disposed to scoff at the errors into which the
limitations of their methods may betray men of Science, the true Occultist
will rather appreciate the pathos of a situation in which great industry
and thirst for truth are condemned to disappointment, and often to
confusion.
That which is to be deplored, however, in respect to Modern Science, is in
itself an evil manifestation of the excessive caution which in its most
favourable aspect protects Science from over‐hasty conclusions: namely,
the tardiness of Scientists to recognise that other instruments of
research may be applicable to the mysteries of Nature besides those of the
physical plane, and that it may consequently be impossible to appreciate
the phenomena of any one plane correctly without observing them as well
from the points of view afforded by others. In so far then as they
wilfully shut their eyes to evidence which ought to have shown them
clearly that Nature is more complex than physical phenomena alone would
suggest, that there are means by which the faculties of human perception
can pass sometimes from one plane to the other, and that their energy is
being misdirected while they turn it exclusively on the minutiæ of
physical structure or force, they are less entitled to sympathy than to
blame.
One feels dwarfed and humbled in reading what M. Renan, that learned
modern “destroyer” of every religious belief, past, present and future,
has to say of poor humanity and its powers of discernment. He believes
Mankind has but a very narrow mind; and the number of men capable
of seizing acutely (_finement_) the true analogy of things, is
quite imperceptible.(47)
Upon comparing, however, this statement with another opinion expressed by
the same author, namely, that:
The mind of the critic should yield to facts, hands and feet
bound, to be dragged by them wherever they may lead him,(48)
one feels relieved. When, moreover, these two philosophical statements are
strengthened by a third enunciation of the famous Academician, which
declares that:
_Tout parti pris à priori, doit être banni de la science_,(49)
there remains little to fear. Unfortunately M. Renan is the first to break
this golden rule.
The evidence of Herodotus—called, sarcastically no doubt, the “Father of
History,” since in every question upon which Modern Thought disagrees with
him, his testimony goes for nought—the sober and earnest assurances in the
philosophical narratives of Plato and Thucydides, Polybius, and Plutarch,
and even certain statements of Aristotle himself, are invariably laid
aside whenever they are involved in what modern criticism is pleased to
regard as a myth. It is some time since Strauss proclaimed that:
The presence of a supernatural element or miracle in a narrative
is an infallible sign of the presence in it of a myth;
and such is the canon of criticism tacitly adopted by every modern critic.
But what is a myth—μῦθος—to begin with? Are we not told distinctly by
ancient writers that the word means tradition? Was not the Latin term
_fabula_, a fable, synonymous with something told, as having happened in
pre‐historic times, and not necessarily an invention. With such autocrats
of criticism and despotic rulers as are most of the French, English, and
German Orientalists, there may, then, be no end of historical,
geographical, ethnological and philological surprises in store for the
century to come. Travesties in Philosophy have become so common of late,
that the public can be startled by nothing in this direction. It has
already been stated by one learned speculator that Homer was simply “a
mythical personification of the épopée”(50); by another, that Hippocrates,
son of Esculapius “could only be a chimera”; that the Asclepiades, their
seven hundred years of duration notwithstanding, might after all prove
simply a “fiction”; that “the city of Troy (Dr. Schliemann to the
contrary) existed only on the maps,” etc. Why should not the world be
invited after this to regard every hitherto historical character of days
of old as a myth? Were not Alexander the Great needed by Philology as a
sledge‐hammer wherewith to break the heads of Brâhmanical chronological
pretensions, he would have become long ago simply “a symbol for
annexation,” or “a genius of conquest,” as has been already suggested by
some French writer.
Blank denial is the only refuge left to the critics. It is the most secure
asylum for some time to come in which to shelter the last of the sceptics.
For one who denies unconditionally, the trouble of arguing is unnecessary,
and he also thus avoids what is worse, having to yield occasionally a
point or two before the irrefutable arguments and facts of his opponent.
Creuzer, the greatest of all the modern Symbologists, the most learned
among the masses of erudite German Mythologists, must have envied the
placid self‐confidence of certain sceptics, when he found himself forced
in a moment of desperate perplexity to admit that:
We are compelled to return to the theories of trolls and genii, as
they were understood by the ancients; [it is a doctrine] without
which it becomes absolutely impossible to explain to oneself
anything with regard to the Mysteries(51)
of the Ancients, which Mysteries are undeniable.
Roman Catholics, who are guilty of precisely the same worship, and to the
very letter—having borrowed it from the later Chaldæans, the Lebanon
Nabathæans, and the baptized Sabæans,(52) and not from the learned
Astronomers and Initiates of the days of old—would now, by anathematizing
it, hide the source from which it came. Theology and Churchianism would
fain trouble the clear fountain that fed them from the first, to prevent
posterity from looking into it, and thus seeing their original prototype.
The Occultists, however, believe the time has come to give everyone his
due. As to our other opponents—the modern sceptic and the Epicurean, the
cynic and the Sadducee—they may find an answer to their denials in our
earlier volumes. As to many unjust aspersions on the ancient doctrines,
the reason for them is given in these words in _Isis Unveiled_:
The thought of the present‐day commentator and critic as to the
ancient learning, is limited to and runs round the exoterism of
the temples; his insight is either unwilling or unable to
penetrate into the solemn adyta of old, where the hierophant
instructed the neophyte to regard the public worship in its true
light. No ancient sage would have taught that man is the king of
creation, and that the starry heaven and our mother earth were
created for his sake.(53)
When we find such works as _Phallicism_(54) appearing in our day in print,
it is easy to see that the day for concealment and travesty has passed
away. Science, in Philology, Symbolism and Comparative Religion, has
progressed too far to make wholesale denials any longer, and the Church is
too wise and cautious not to be now making the best of the situation.
Meanwhile, the “rhombs of Hecate” and the “wheels of Lucifer,”(55) daily
exhumed on the sites of Babylonia, can no longer be used as clear evidence
of a Satan‐worship, since the same symbols are shown in the ritual of the
Latin Church. The latter is too learned to be ignorant of the fact that
even the later Chaldæans, who had gradually fallen into dualism, reducing
all things to two primal Principles, never worshipped Satan or idols, any
more than did the Zoroastrians, who now lie under the same accusation, but
that their Religion was as highly philosophical as any; their dual and
exoteric Theosophy became the heirloom of the Jews, who, in their turn,
were forced to share it with the Christians. Pârsîs are to this day
charged with Heliolatry, and yet in the Chaldæan Oracles, under the
“Magical and Philosophical Precepts of Zoroaster” one finds the following:
Direct not thy mind to the vast measures of the earth;
For the plant of truth is not upon ground.
Nor measure the measures of the sun, collecting rules,
For he is carried by the eternal will of the Father, not for your
sake.
Dismiss the impetuous course of the moon; for she runs always by
work of necessity.
The progression of the stars was not generated for your sake.
There was a vast difference between the true worship taught to those who
showed themselves worthy, and the state religions. The Magians are accused
of all kinds of superstition, but this is what the same Chaldæan Oracle
says:
The wide aerial flight of birds is not true,
Nor the dissections of the entrails of victims; they are all mere
toys,
The basis of mercenary fraud; flee from these
If you would open the sacred paradise of piety,
Where virtue, wisdom, and equity are assembled.(56)
As we say in our former work:
Surely it is not those who warn people against “mercenary fraud”
who can be accused of it; and if they accomplished acts which seem
miraculous, who can with fairness presume to deny that it was done
merely because they possessed a knowledge of natural philosophy
and psychological science to a degree unknown to our schools?(57)
The above quoted stanzas are a rather strange teaching to come from those
who are universally believed to have worshipped the sun, and moon, and the
starry hosts, as Gods. The sublime profundity of the Magian precepts being
beyond the reach of modern materialistic thought, the Chaldæan
Philosophers are accused of Sabæanism and Sun‐worship, which was the
religion only of the uneducated masses.