III. _Inflectional speech_: the root of the Sanskrit, very erroneously

called the “elder sister” of the Greek, instead of its mother—was the first language, now the mystery tongue of the Initiates, of the Fifth Race. The “Semitic” languages are the bastard descendants of the first phonetic corruptions of the eldest children of the early Sanskrit. The Occult Doctrine admits of no such divisions as the Âryan and the Semite, and accepts even the Turanian with ample reservations. The Semites, especially the Arabs, are later Âryans—degenerate in spirituality and perfected in materiality. To these belong all the Jews and the Arabs. The former are a tribe descended from the Chandâlas of India, the outcasts, many of them ex‐Brâhmans, who sought refuge in Chaldæa, in Scinde, and Aria (Iran), and were truly born from their father A‐Bram (No‐Brâhman) some 8,000 years B.C. The latter, the Arabs, are the descendants of those Âryans who would not go into India at the time of the dispersion of nations, some of whom remained on the borderlands thereof, in Afghanistan and Kabul(455) and along the Oxus, while others penetrated into and invaded Arabia. But this was when Africa had already been raised as a continent. We have meanwhile to follow, as closely as limited space will permit, the gradual evolution of the now truly human species. It is in the suddenly arrested evolution of certain sub‐races, and their forced and violent diversion into the purely animal line by artificial cross‐breeding, truly analogous to the hybridization which we have now learned to utilize in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, that we have to look for the origin of the anthropoids. In these red‐haired and hair‐covered monsters, the fruit of the unnatural connection between men and animals, the “Lords of Wisdom” did not incarnate, as we see. Thus through a long series of transformations due to unnatural cross‐breeding—unnatural “sexual selection”—originated in due course of time the lowest specimens of humanity; while further bestiality and the fruit of their first animal efforts of reproduction begat a species which developed into mammalian apes ages later.(456) As to the separation of sexes, it did not occur suddenly, as one may think. Nature proceeds slowly in whatever she does. 37. THE ONE(457) BECAME TWO; ALSO ALL THE LIVING AND CREEPING THINGS THAT WERE STILL ONE, GIANT FISH, BIRDS AND SERPENTS WITH SHELL‐HEADS. This relates evidently to the so‐called age of amphibious reptiles, during which Science denies that man existed! But what could the Ancients know of antediluvian prehistoric animals and monsters? Nevertheless, in Book VI of the Commentaries is found a passage which, freely translated, says: _When the Third separated and fell into sin by breeding men‐animals, these [the animals] became ferocious, and men and they mutually destructive. Till then, there was no sin, no life taken. After [the separation] the Satya [Yuga] was at an end. The eternal spring became constant change and seasons succeeded. Cold forced men to build shelters and devise clothing. Then man appealed to the superior Fathers [the higher Gods or Angels]. The Nirmânakâyas, of the Nâgas, the wise Serpents and Dragons of Light, came, and the precursors of the Enlightened [the Buddhas]. Divine Kings descended and taught men sciences and arts, for man could live no longer in the first land [Âdi‐Varsha, the Eden of the first Races], which had turned into a white frozen corpse._ The above is suggestive. We will see what can be inferred from this brief statement. Some may incline to think that there is more in it than is apparent at first sight. Edens, Serpents, And Dragons. Whence the idea, and the true meaning of the term “Eden”? Christians will maintain that the Garden of Eden is the holy Paradise, the place _desecrated by the sin_ of Adam and Eve; the Occultist will deny this dead‐letter interpretation, and show the reverse. One need not believe in the _Bible_ and see in it divine revelation, to say that this ancient book, if read esoterically, is based upon the same universal traditions as the other ancient scriptures. What Eden was is partially shown in _Isis Unveiled_, where it is said that: The Garden of Eden as a locality is no myth at all; it belongs to those landmarks of history which occasionally disclose to the student that the _Bible_ is not all mere allegory. “Eden, or the Hebrew גן עדן, Gan‐Eden, meaning the Park or the Garden of Eden, is an archaic name of the country watered by the Euphrates and its many branches, from Asia and Armenia to the Erythraian sea.”(458) In the Chaldæan _Book of Numbers_, its location is designated in numerals, and in the cypher Rosicrucian manuscript, left by Count St. Germain, it is fully described. In the Assyrian _Tablets_ it is rendered Gan‐duniyas. “Behold,” say the אלהִם, Elohim, of _Genesis_, “the man is become as one of us.” The Elohim may be accepted in one sense for _gods_ or powers, and in another for Aleim, or priests—the hierophants initiated into the good and evil of this world; for there was a college of priests called the Aleim, while the head of their caste, or the chief of the hierophants, was known as Java‐Aleim. Instead of becoming a neophyte, and gradually obtaining his esoteric knowledge through a regular initiation, an Adam, or Man, uses his intuitional faculties and, prompted by the serpent—_Woman_ and Matter—tastes of the Tree of Knowledge, the Esoteric or Secret Doctrine, unlawfully. The priests of Hercules, or Mel‐karth, the “Lord” of the Eden, all wore “coats of skin.” The text says: “And Java‐Aleim made for Adam and his wife, כתנותעור. Chitonuth‐our.” The first Hebrew word, Chiton, is the Greek Χιτὼν (Chitôn). It became a Slavonic word by adoption from the _Bible_, and means a _coat_, an upper garment. Though containing the same substratum of esoteric truth as does every early Cosmogony, the Hebrew Scripture wears on its face the marks of a double origin. Its _Genesis_ is purely a reminiscence of the Babylonian captivity. The names of places, men, and even objects, can be traced from the original text to the Chaldæans and the Akkadians, the progenitors and Âryan instructors of the former. It is strongly contested that the Akkad tribes of Chaldæa, Babylonia and Assyria were in any way cognate with the Brâhmans of Hindûstan; but there are more proofs in favour of this opinion than otherwise. The Shemite or Assyrian ought, perchance, to have been called the Turanian, and the Mongolians have been denominated Scyths. But if the Akkadians ever existed, otherwise than in the imagination of some Philologists and Ethnologists, they certainly would never have been a Turanian tribe, as some Assyriologists have striven to make us believe. They were simply emigrants on their way to Asia Minor from India, the cradle of humanity, and their sacerdotal adepts tarried to civilize and initiate a barbarian people. Halévy proved the fallacy of the Turanian mania in regard to Akkadian people, and other scientists have proved that the Babylonian civilization was neither born nor developed in that country. It was imported from India, and the importers were Brâhmanical Hindûs.(459) And now, ten years after this was written, we find ourselves corroborated by Professor Sayce, who says in his first Hibbert Lecture that the culture of the Babylonian city Eridu was of “foreign importation.” It came from India. Much of the theology was borrowed by the Semites from the non‐ Semitic Akkadians or Proto‐Chaldæans, whom they supplanted, and whose local cults they had neither the will nor the power to uproot. Indeed, throughout a long course of ages the two races, Semites and Akkadians, lived side by side, their notions and worship of the gods blending insensibly together. Here, the Akkadians are called “non‐Semitic,” as we had insisted they were in _Isis Unveiled_, which is another corroboration. Nor are we less right in always maintaining that the Jewish biblical history was a compilation of _historical_ facts, arranged from other people’s history in Jewish garb—_Genesis_ excluded, which is Esotericism pure and simple. But it is really from the Euxine to Kashmir, and beyond, that Science has to search for the cradle—or rather one of the chief cradles—of mankind and the sons of Ad‐ah; especially in after times, when the Garden of Ed‐en on the Euphrates became the College of the Astrologers and Magi, the Aleim. But this College and this Eden belong to the Fifth Race, and are simply a faint reminiscence of the Âdi‐Varsha, of the primeval Third Race. What is the etymological meaning of the word Eden? In Greek it is ἡδονὴ, signifying “voluptuousness.” In this aspect it is no better than the Olympus of the Greeks, Indra’s Heaven, Svarga, on Mount Meru, and even the Paradise full of Houris, promised by Mahomet to the faithful. The Garden of Eden was never the property of the Jews, for China, which can hardly be suspected of having known anything of the Jews 2,000 B.C., had such a primitive Garden in Central Asia inhabited by the “Dragons of Wisdom,” the Initiates. And according to Klaproth, the hieroglyphical chart copied from a Japanese Cyclopædia in the book of _Foĕ‐kouĕ‐ki_(460) places its “Garden of Wisdom” on the Plateau of Pamir between the highest peaks of the Himâlayan ranges; and, describing it as the culminating point of Central Asia, shows the four rivers—Oxus, Indus, Ganges, and Silo—flowing from a common source, the “Lake of the Dragons.” But this is not the Genetic Eden; nor is it the Kabalistical Garden of Eden. For the former—Eden Illa‐ah—means in one sense Wisdom, a state like that of Nirvâna, a Paradise of Bliss; while in another sense it refers to Intellectual Man himself, the container of the Eden in which grows the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil; man being the Knower thereof. Renan and Barthélemy St. Hilaire, basing themselves “on the most solid inductions,” think it impossible to doubt any longer, and both place the cradle of humanity “in the region of the Timaus.” Finally, the _Journal Asiatique_(461) concludes that: All the traditions of the human race gathering its primitive families at the region of their birth‐place, show them to us grouped around the countries where Jewish tradition places the Garden of Eden; where the Âryans [Zoroastrians] established their Airyana Vaêjô or the Meru [?]. They are hemmed in to the North by the countries which join Lake Aral, and to the South by Baltistan, or Little Tibet. Everything concurs in proving that there was the abode of that primitive humanity to which we have to be traced. That “primitive humanity” was in its Fifth Race, when the “Four‐mouthed Dragon,” the lake, of which very few traces are now left, was the abode of the “Sons of Wisdom,” the first Mind‐born Sons of the Third Race. Yet it was neither the only nor the primitive cradle of humanity, though it was the copy of the cradle, verily, of the first thinking _divine_ Man. It was the Paradesha, the highland of the first Sanskrit‐speaking people, the Hedone, the country of delight of the Greeks, but it was not the “Bower of Voluptuousness” of the Chaldæans, for the latter was but the reminiscence of it; nor again was it there that the “Fall of Man” occurred after the “separation.” The Eden of the Jews was _copied_ from the Chaldæan _copy_. That the Fall of Man into generation occurred during the earliest portion of what Science calls the Mesozoic times, or the age of the reptiles, is evidenced by the bible phraseology concerning the serpent, the nature of which is explained in the _Zohar_. The question is not whether Eve’s incident with the tempting reptile is allegorical or textual, for no one can doubt that it is the former, but to show the antiquity of the symbolism on the very face of it, and that it was not a Jewish but a universal idea. Now we find in the _Zohar_ a very strange assertion, one that is calculated to provoke the reader to merry laughter by its ludicrous absurdity. It tells us that the serpent, which was used by Shamaël, the supposed Satan, to seduce Eve, was a kind of “flying camel”—καμηλόμορφον.(462) A “flying camel” is indeed too much for the most liberal‐minded F.R.S. Nevertheless, the _Zohar_, which can hardly be expected to use the language of a Cuvier, was right in its description; for we find it called in the old Zoroastrian MSS. Aschmogh, which in the _Avesta_ is represented as having after the Fall lost its _nature_ and its _name_, and is described as a huge serpent with a camel’s neck. Salverte asserts that: There are no winged serpents nor veritable dragons.... Grasshoppers are still called by the Greeks _winged serpents_, and this metaphor may have created several narratives on the existence of winged serpents.(463) There are none _now_; but there is no reason why they should not have existed during the Mesozoic Age; and Cuvier, who has reconstructed their skeletons, is a witness to “flying camels.” Already, after finding simple fossils of certain saurians, the great Naturalist has written, that: If anything can justify the hydras and other monsters, whose figures were so often repeated by mediæval historians, it is incontestably the Plesiosaurus.(464) We are unaware if Cuvier has added anything in the way of a further _mea culpa_, but we may well imagine his confusion for all his slanders against archaic veracity, when he found himself in the presence of a _flying_ saurian, the Pterodactyl, found in Germany, seventy‐eight feet long, and carrying vigorous wings attached to its reptilian body. This fossil is described as a reptile, the _little fingers of whose hands_ are so elongated as to bear a long membranous wing. Here, then, the “flying camel” of the _Zohar_ is vindicated. For surely, between the long neck of the Plesiosaurus and the membranous wing of the Pterodactyl, or still better the Mosasaurus, there is enough scientific probability on which to build a “flying camel,” or a long‐necked dragon. Prof. Cope, of Philadelphia, has shown that the Mosasaurus fossil in the chalk was a winged serpent of this kind. There are characters in its vertebræ, which indicate union with the Ophidia rather than with the Lacertilia. And now to the main question. It is well known that Antiquity has never claimed Palæontography and Palæontology among its arts and sciences; and it never had its Cuviers. Yet on Babylonian tiles, and especially in old Chinese and Japanese drawings, in the oldest Pagodas and monuments, and in the Imperial Library at Pekin, many a traveller has seen and recognized perfect representations of Plesiosauri and Pterodactyls in the multiform Chinese dragons.(465) Moreover, the prophets speak in the _Bible_ of the flying fiery serpents,(466) and Job mentions the Leviathan.(467) Now the following questions are put very directly: