SECTION I.

Esoteric Tenets Corroborated in Every
Scripture.
In view of the strangeness of the teachings, and of many a doctrine which from the modem scientific standpoint must seem absurd, some necessary and additional explanations have to be made. The theories contained in the Stanzas of Volume II are even more difficult to assimi- late than those which are embodied in Volume T, on Cosmogony. Theo- lo^, therefore, has to be questioned here, in Part IL as Science will be in Part III, for since our doctrines differ so widely from the current ideas of both Materialism and Theolog^% the Occultists must be ever prepared to repel the attacks of either or of both.
The reader can never be too often reminded that, as the abundant quotations from various old Scriptures prove, these teachings are as old as the world; and that the present work is simply an attempt to render, in modem language and in a phraseoJog^ with which the scientific and educated student is familiar, archaic Genesis and History as taught in certain Asiatic centres of Esoteric Learning. These must be accepted or rejected on their owb merits, fully or partially; but not before they have been carefully compared with the corresponding theological dogmas and the modern scientific theories and speculations.
One feels serious doubt whether, with all its iutellectual acuteness, our age is destined to discover in each Western nation even one solitary
47«
THE SECltBT DOCTRnTE.
Theosophists to team, on gt>od proof, that the speculations of modem Psychologists — whether serious Idealists, like Mr. Herbert Spencer, or wool-gathering Pseudo-idealists — are far more chimerical. Indeed, in- stead of resting on the finn foundation of facts in Nature, they are the unhealthy will-o'-the-wisps of materialistic imagination, of the brains that evolved them — and no more. While they deny, we affirm; and our afhnnation is corroborated by almost all the Sages of antiquity. Believing iu Occultism and a host of invisible Potencies for good reasons, we say, Crrims xvat, sde^m^ ardiJi; to which our critics reply, Credai Jndmts ApHtu^ Neither is converted by the other, nor does Huch result affect even our little planet. E pur se mucvtf
Nor is there any need of proselytizing. As remarked by the wise Cicero : Tliiir ilectroys the speculations of man, bttt it confirms the judgment of nature.
Ucl itft bide our time. Meanwhile, it is not in the human constitution to witncSH in silence the destruction of one's Gods, whether they be true or false. And as Theolog>- and Materialism have combined together to destroy the old Gods of antiquity and seek to disfigure every old philosophical conception, it is but just that the lovers of the OUl Wisdom should defend their position, by proving that the whole araennl of the two is, at best, formed of new weapons made out of very old uiutcrial.
Nambs such as Adam-Adami, used by Dr. Chwolsohn in his Nabaihean Agriculture and derided by M. Renan. may prove little to the profane. To the Occultist, however, once that the term is fouud 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 Aryan 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 Aryans 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 Adi-Nath, also meaning First Lord, as Ad-tshvara, 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 symbolog>'. The author of the Qabbalahy according to the philosophical writings of Ibn Gebirol, shows the Israelites using Ad-ouai (A Do Na Y)» **Lord," instead of Eh'yeh, "I am," and YHVH, and adds that, while Adonai is rendered "Lord" in the Bible,
The lowest designation, or the Deity in Nature, the more general term Blohim, is tratisUted God.*
■ Myer's QaMciuht p. ty^
47^
THH SECRET DOCTRINE.
Theosophists to learn, on good proof, that the speculations of modem Psychologists — whether serious Idealists, like Mr. Herbert Spencer, or wool-gathering Pseudo-idealists — are far more chimerical. Indeed, in- stead of resting on the firm foundation of facts in Nature, they are the unhealthy will-o*-the-wisps of materialistic imagination, of the brains that evolved them — and no more. While they deny, we afl&rm ; and our affirmation is corroborated by almost all the Sages of antiquity. Believing in Occultism and a host of invisible Potencies for good reasons, we say, Ccrtus sum, scio quod credidi ; to which our critics reply. Credat Judtrus Apella. Neither is converted by the other, nor does such result affect even our little planet. E pur se muove!
Nor is there any need of proselytizing. As remarked by the wise Cicero :
Time destroys the speculations of man, bnt it confirms the judgment of nature.
Let us bide our time. Meanwhile, it is not in the human constitution to witness in silence the destruction of one's Gods, whether they be true or false. And as Theology and Materialism have combined together to destroy the old Gods of antiquity and seek to disfigure every old philosophical conception, it is but just that the lovers of the Old Wisdom should defend their position, by proving that the whole arsenal of the two is, at best, formed of new weapons made out of very old material.
Names such as Adam-Adami, used by Dr. Chwolsohn in his Nabathean Agriculiure 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 Aryan 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 g^ven by the Aryans to the 6rst 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 Adi-Ndth, also meaning First Lord, as Ad-lshvara, 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 phraseologfy, 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 symbolog>\ The author of the Qabbalah, according to the philosophical writings of Ibu Gebirol, shows the Israelites using Ad-onai (A Do Na Y), "Lord," instead of Eh'yeh, "I am,'* and YHVH, and adds that, while Adonai is rendered "Lord" in the Bibie,
The lowest designation, or the Deity in Nature, the more general term Elohiin, is translated God.*
474
THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
A curious work was translated in i860 or thereabout, by the Orientalist Chwolsohn, and presented to ever-incredulous and flippant Europe under the innocent title of Nabaihean 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 w«- iUniably authentic documents. It is nn invaluable compendium, the full epitome of the doctrines, arts and sciences, not only of the Chaldseans, but also of the Assyrians and Canaanites of the pre-historic ages* These Nabatheans — as some critics thought — were simply the Saba?ans, or Chaldsean star-worshippers. The work is a retranslation from the Arabic, into which language it was at first translated from the Chaldaean.
Masoudi, the Arabian historian, speaks of these Nabatheans, and explains their origin in thiswise:
After the Deluge [?] the nations established themselves in various countries. Among these were the Nabatheans, who founded the city of Babylon, and were those descendantii of Ham who settled in the Hamc province under the leadership of Nimrod, the sou of Cuah, who was the sou of Ham and great-grandson of Noah. This took place at the time when Nimrod received the governorship of Babylonia as the delegate of Dzahbalc named Biourasp.t
The translator, Chwolsohti. finds that the assertions of this historian are in perfect accord with those of Moses in Gettesis; while more irreve- rent 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 J 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 tlie work under notice, however, are its con- tents, the doctrines enunciated in it^ which are again, if read Esoteri- cally. almost all of them identical with the Secret Teachings.
Quatremere 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 evi- dence, that its Chaldsean original was written out from the oral discourses and teachings of a wealthy Babylonian landowner, named Qu-tfimy, who
* Sec De Mirriltc, fitrumatoto^, iii. pp. atS etst^q. ■* Op.eit., ibid.
t See Gemesii and the authorized chronologT. Xa chapter vili, In chapter x, "Nimrod the first monarch." stands over 1,998 K.C.
Noah leareth the srk"— a.34S B.C.
NABATHKAJI AGRICUI.TURE.
475
had iised for those lectures still more ancient materials. The first Arabic trauslalion is placed by Chwolsohu so far back as the thirteenth century B.C. On the first page of this "revelation/* the author, or amanuensis, Qu-tamy, declares that "the doctrines propounded therein, were crigin- ally laid by Solum . . . lo the Moon, who communicated them to her idoir and the idol revealed Ihent to her devotee, the writer — the Adept Scribe of that work — Qu-tamy.
The details given by the God for the benefit and instruction of mortals, show periods of incalculable duration and a series of number- less 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 tev^e- in-arms against the translator. He reproaches him with sacrificing Moses to anonymous authors.* 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 Xisuthnis-Noah, and of Belus-Nirarod, etc. Therefore, he adds, the work must be an apocryphon to be ranged with its contemporaries — the Foitrth Book of Esdras, the Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles, and the Book of Hennes — every one of these dating no further back than two or three centuries B,C. Ew^ald came down still harder on Chwolsohn, and finally