Page 61 (part 4)

We answer: firstly, because the knowledge of such animals is a proof of the enormous antiquity of the human race; and secondly, to show the difference between the zoological real meaning of the words "dragon," " Naga, " and "Serpent," and the metaphorical one, when used symbolically. The profane reader, who knows nothing of the mystery language, is likely, whenever he finds one of these words mentioned, to accept it literally. Hence, the quid pro quos and unjust accusations. A couple of instances will suffice. Sed et serpens? aye: but what was the nature of the serpent? Mystics intuitionally see in the serpent of Genesis an animal emblem and a high spiritual essence: a cosmic force superintelligent, a "great fallen light," a spirit sidereal, aerial and tellurian at the same time, "whose influence circumambulates the globe ( qui circumambulat terram ) , as a Christian fanatic of the dead-letter (de Mirville) has it, and which only manifested itself under the physical emblem, which was the most convenient "with respect to its moral and intellectual coils " : i.e. under the ophidian form. But what will Christians make of the Brazen Serpent, the "DIVINE HEALER," if the serpent is to be regarded as the emblem of cunning and evil? The "Evil One" itself? How can the line of demarcation ever be settled, when it is traced arbitrarily in a sectarian theological spirit. For, if the followers of the Roman Church are taught that Mercury and AEsculapius, or Asclepios, who are, in truth, one, are "devils and sons of devils," and the wand and serpent of the latter were "the devil's wand"; how about the "brazen serpent" of Moses? Every scholar knows that both the heathen wand and the Jewish "serpent" are one and the same, namely, the Caduceus of Mercury, son of A POLLO-PYTHON. It is easy to comprehend why the Jews adopted the ophidian shape for their "seducer." With them it was purely physiological and phallic ; and no amount of casuistical reasoning on the part of the Roman Catholic Church can give it another meaning, once that the mystery language is well studied, and that the Hebrew scrolls are read numerically. The Occultists know that the serpent, the Naga, and the dragon have each a septenary meaning; that the Sun, for instance, was the astronomical and cosmic emblem of the two contrasted lights, and the two serpents of the Gnostics, the good and the evil one; they also know that, when generalised, the conclusions of both science and theology present two most ridiculous extremes. For, when the former tells us that it is sufficient to trace the legends of the serpents to their primal source, the astrological legend, and to meditate seriously on the Sun , conqueror of Python, and the celestial virgin in the Zodiac forcing back the devouring dragon, if we would have the key of all the subsequent religious dogmas; it is easy to perceive that, instead of [[Vol. 2, Page]] 209 COBRAS AS SYMBOLS. generalising, the author simply has his eye on Christian religion and Revelation. We call this one extreme. The other we see in this: when, repeating the famous decision of the Council of Trent, theology seeks to convince the masses that "from the fall of man until the hour of his baptism the devil has full power over him, and possesses him by right ( diabolum dominationem et potestatem super homines habere et jure cos possidere )." To this Occult philosophy answers: Prove first the existence of the devil as an entity, and then we may believe in such congenital possession. A very small amount of observation and knowledge of human nature may be sufficient to prove the fallacy of this theological dogma. Had S ATAN any reality, in the objective or even subjective world (in the ecclesiastical sense), it is the poor devil who would find himself chronically obsessed and even possessed by the wicked -- hence by the bulk of mankind. It is humanity itself, and especially the clergy, headed by the haughty, unscrupulous and intolerant Roman Church, which have begotten, given birth to, and reared in love the evil one; but this is a digression. "The whole world of thought is reproached by the Church with having adored the serpent. The whole of humanity 'incensed and at the same time stoned it.' The Zend Avesta speaks of it as the Kings and Vedas do, as the Edda and the Bible. . . . Everywhere the sacred serpent, the naga, and its shrine and its priest; in Rome it is the Vestal who prepares its meal with the same care as she bestows on the sacred fire. In Greece, AEsculapius cannot cure without its assistance, and delegates to it his powers. Everyone has heard of the famous Roman embassy sent by the Senate to the god of medicine and its return with the not less famous serpent, which proceeded of its own will and by itself toward its Master's temple on one of the islands of the Tiber. Not a Bacchante that did not wind it (the serpent) in her hair, not an Augur but questioned it oracularly, not a necromancer whose tomb is free from its presence! The Cainites and the Ophites call it Creator, while recognizing, as Schelling did, that the serpent is 'evil in substance and its personification.' "* Yes, the author is right, and if one would have a complete idea of the prestige which the serpent enjoys to our own day, one ought to study the matter in India and learn all that is believed about, and still attributed to, the Nagas (Cobras) in that country; one should also visit the Africans of Whydah, the Voodoos of Port-au-Prince and Jamaica, the Nagals of Mexico, and the Pa, or men-serpents of China, &c. But why wonder that the serpent is "adored" and at the same time cursed, since we [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * "Sacred Serpents" on p. 432 of de Mirville's " Memoire. " [[Vol. 2, Page]] 210 THE SECRET DOCTRINE know that from the beginning it was a symbol?* In every ancient language the word dragon signified what it now does in Chinese -- ( lang ) i.e., " the being who excels in intelligence " and in Greek [[ drakon ]], or "he who sees and watches." And is it to the animal of that name that any of these epithets can apply? Is it not evident, wherever superstition and oblivion of the primitive meaning may have led savages now, that the said qualifications were intended to apply to the human originals, who were symbolized by serpents and dragons?