[117]. We know but two cases of married “chelas” being accepted; but both these were Brahmins and had child-wives, according to Hindu custom, and they were Reformers more than chelas, trying to abrogate child-marriage and slavery. Others had to obtain the consent of their wives before entering the “Path,” as is usual in India since long ages.
[118]. This rule 1. applies only to the “temple chelas,” who must be perfect.
[119]. Or one, if the other is dead.
[120]. See “[The Esoteric Character of the Gospels],” in this number.
[121]. “Auto-Centricism, or, The Brain Theory of Life and Mind,” p. 41.
[122]. This modest assumption is followed by the generous promise to furnish “investigators of the same order” as the supposed “Sibyl,” with “a still more profound theosophy.” This is extremely considerate and kind. But if it is Pistis-Sophia which the author had in his mind, then he had better apply to Theosophists for the explanation of the most recondite points in that gnostic fragment, while translating it, as he proposes doing from Latin. For though the world of the Orientalists “of the same order” as himself, may labour under the mistaken impression that no one except themselves knew or know anything about Pistis-Sophia till 1853—Theosophists know better. Does Mr. King really imagine that no one besides himself knows anything about the Gnostics “and their remains,” or what he knows is the only correct thing to know? Strange delusion, if so; yet quite a harmless one, we confess.
[123]. Astoreth-Diana, Isis, Melita, Venus, etc., etc.
[124]. Because the stars and planets are the symbols and houses of Angels and Elohim, who were, of course, “created,” or evoluted before the physical or cosmic sun or moon. “The sun god was called the child of the moon god Sin, in Assyria, and the lunar god Taht, is called the father of Osiris, the sun god ‘in Egypt.’” (G. Massey.)
LUCIFER
Vol. I. LONDON, JANUARY 15TH, 1888. No. 5.