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 [pg 213]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.