← Home
The Secret Doctrine · 566 of 727

Page 78 (part 8)

As various writers have shown, and as brutally stated in Hargrave Jennings' Phallicism (p. 67) " We know from the Jewish records that the Ark contained a table of stone . . . . that stone was phallic, and yet identical with the sacred name Jehovah . . . which written in unpointed Hebrew with four letters, is J-E-V-E or JHVH (the H being merely an aspirate and the same as E). This process leaves us the two letters I and V (in another form U); then if we place the I in the U we have the 'Holy of Holies'; we also have the Lingha and Yoni and Argha of the Hindus, the Isvara and 'supreme Lord'; and here we have the whole secret of its mystic and arc-celestial import, confirmed in itself by being identical with the Linyoni (?) of the Ark of the Covenant." The Biblical Jews of to-day do not date from Moses but from David -- even admitting the identity of the old genuine with the later and remodelled Mosaic scrolls. Before that time their nationality is lost in the mists of prehistoric darkness, the veil from which is now withdrawn as much as we have space to do so. It is only to the days of the Babylonian captivity that the Old Testament may be referred by the most lenient criticism, as the approximately correct views that were current about the days of Moses. Even such fanatical Christians and worshippers of Jehovah as the Rev. Mr. Horne, have to admit the numerous changes and alterations made by the later compilers of the "Book of God," since it was found by Hilkiah ( See " Introduction to the Old Testament, " and also Bishop Colenso ' s " Elohistic and Jehovistic writers ") ; and that " the Pentateuch arose out of the primitive or older documents, by means of a SUPPLEMENTARY One. " The Elohistic texts were re-written 500 years after the date of Moses; the Jehovistic 800, on the authority of the Bible chronology itself. Hence, it is maintained that the deity, represented as the organ of generation in his pillar form, and as a symbol of the double-sexed organ in the numeral value of the letters of his name, or the Yodh (phallus), and He (the opening, or [[Vol. 2, Page]] 474 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. the Womb) according to Kabalistic authority -- is of a far later date than the Elohim symbols and is borrowed from the Pagan exoteric rites; and Jehovah is thus on a par with the Lingham and Yoni found on every road-side in India. Just as the IAO of the mysteries was distinct from Jehovah, so was the later Iao and Abraxas of some Gnostic sects identical with the god of the Hebrews, who was the same with the Egyptian Horus. This is undeniably proven on "heathen" as on the Gnostic "Christian" gems. In Matter's collection of such gems there is a "Horus" seated on the lotus, inscribed [[ ABRASAXIAO ]] (Abraxas Iao) -- an address exactly parallel to the so frequent [[ EIS ZETS SARAPI ]] ( Eis zets sarapi ) on the contemporary Heathen gems; and therefore only to be translated by "Abraxas is the One Jehovah" (King's Gnostics, p. 327). But who was Abraxas? As the same author shows -- "the numerical or Kabalistic value of the name Abraxas directly refer to the Persian title of the god 'Mithra,' Ruler of the year, worshipped from the earliest times under the appellation of Iao." Thus, the Sun, in one aspect, the moon or the Lunar genius, in another, that generative deity whom the Gnostics saluted as "Thou that presidest over the Mysteries of the Father and the Son, who shinest in the night-time, holding the second rank, the first Lord of Death." It is only in his capacity of the genius of the moon, the latter being credited in the old cosmogony with being the parent of our Earth, that Jehovah could ever be regarded as the creator of our globe and its Heaven, namely, the Firmament. The knowledge of all this will be no proof, however, to the average bigot. Missionaries will go on with the most virulent attacks on the religions of India, and Christians read with the same benighted smile of satisfaction as ever these preposterously unjust words of Coleridge, "It is highly worthy of observation that the inspired writings received by Christians are distinguishable from all other books PRETENDING TO INSPIRATION, from the Scriptures of the Brahmins, and even from the Koran, in their strong and frequent recommendation of TRUTH (! !). . . ."
§ Ask Guru about this passage →
Themes
Demiurgecosmology

A secondary creator deity—often ignorant or malevolent—responsible for fashioning the material world, distinct from the supreme transcendent God.

The passage implies Jehovah is a lesser, later, borrowed deity 'on a par with the Lingham and Yoni found on every road-side in India,' distinct from the older Elohim, suggesting a secondary creator rather than the supreme principle.

All passages →
Unity Of Beingtheology

The doctrine that all existence is ultimately one substance or one divine reality; non-duality as a theological claim.

The passage argues that Jehovah, Horus, Abraxas, Iao, and Mithra are all the same underlying principle appearing under different cultural names, implying a single reality behind the diversity.

All passages →
Related passages · 8 parallels
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 4 (part 1)
p. 89 CHAPTER IV. CREATION. Everything we see in nature is manifested truth; only we are not able to recognise it as such, unless the truth is manifest within ourselves. God is the supreme, fundamental, universal, self-existent eternal…”
Shared concept: Unity Of Being — The doctrine that all existence is ultimately one substance or one divine reality; non-duality as a theological claim. (derived)
neoplatonism|Select Works of Plotinus|Select Works, Section 611
Section 4 4. Then consider this god [in man] whom we cannot think to be absent at some point and present at another. All that have insight into the nature of the divine beings hold the omnipresence of this god and of all the gods, and reaso…”
Shared concept: Unity Of Being — The doctrine that all existence is ultimately one substance or one divine reality; non-duality as a theological claim. (derived)
christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 13, Section 1c
Emily Brontë: “Every existence would exist in Thee.”) And if all things be conceived as being ultimately unified with each other, then all things taken as a whole are One. 507 507 All things possess the same Super-Essence, and that is why…”
Shared concept: Unity Of Being — The doctrine that all existence is ultimately one substance or one divine reality; non-duality as a theological claim. (derived)
christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 2, Section 1e
even as the lights of lamps (to use visible and homely similes) being in one house and wholly interpenetrating one another, severally possess a clear and absolute distinction each from each, and are by their distinctions united into one, an…”
Shared concept: Unity Of Being — The doctrine that all existence is ultimately one substance or one divine reality; non-duality as a theological claim. (derived)
neoplatonism|Select Works of Plotinus|Select Works, Section 633 (part 2)
If Unity is necessary to the substantial existence of all that really is- and nothing exists which is not one- Unity must precede Reality and be its author. It is therefore, an existent Unity, not an existent that develops Unity; considere…”
Shared concept: Unity Of Being — The doctrine that all existence is ultimately one substance or one divine reality; non-duality as a theological claim. (derived)
western_esoteric|Tertium Organum (P.D. Ouspensky)|Chapter XVI (part 9)
In our language only an eternally becoming universe exists. The "Eternal Now" cannot be expressed in language. Thus our language pictures to us beforehand a false universe— dual , when in reality it is one ; and eternally becoming when it…”
Shared concept: Unity Of Being — The doctrine that all existence is ultimately one substance or one divine reality; non-duality as a theological claim. (derived)
neoplatonism|Iamblichus: On the Mysteries|Chapter III
According to another order, however, he arranges the God Emeph prior to, and as the leader of, the celestial Gods. And he says that this God is an intellect, itself intellectually perceiving itself, and converting intellections to itself. B…”
Shared concept: Demiurge — A secondary creator deity—often ignorant or malevolent—responsible for fashioning the material world, distinct from the supreme transcendent God. (derived)
neoplatonism|Iamblichus: On the Mysteries|Chapter XXVIII-a
You adduce, however, as a thing by no means to be despised, “ the artificers of efficacious images .” But I should wonder if these were admitted by any one of the theurgists who survey the true forms of the Gods. For why should any one exc…”
Shared concept: Demiurge — A secondary creator deity—often ignorant or malevolent—responsible for fashioning the material world, distinct from the supreme transcendent God. (derived)