Theosophical University Press Online Edition
[[This page continued from previous section]]
“There was neither day nor night, nor sky nor earth, nor darkness nor light, nor any other thing save only one, unapprehensible by intellect, or that which is Brahma and Pumis (Spirit) and Pradhana (crude matter)” (Veda: “Vishnu Purana Commentary”); or literally: “One Pradhanika Brahma Spirit: that was.” The “Pradhanika Brahma Spirit” is Mulaprakriti and Parabrahmam.
In Vishnu Purana, Parasara says to Maitreya, his pupil: — “I have thus explained to you, excellent Muni, six creations. . . . the creation of the Arvaksrotas beings was the seventh, and was that of man.” Then he proceeds to speak of two additional and very mysterious creations, variously interpreted by the commentators.
Origen, commenting upon the books written by Celsus, his opponent — books which were all destroyed by the prudent Church Fathers — evidently answers the objections of his contradictor and reveals his system at the same time. This was evidently septenary. But his theogony, the genesis of the stars or planets, that of sound and colour, all found as an answer satire, and no better. Celsus, you see, “desiring to exhibit his learning,” speaks of a ladder of creation with seven gates, and on the top
of it the eighth — ever closed. The mysteries of the Persian Mithras are explained and “musical reasons, moreover, are added.” . . . . And to these again he strives “to add a second explanation connected also with musical considerations,”* — i.e., with the seven notes of the scale, the Seven Spirits of the Stars, &c., &c.
Valentinus expatiates upon the power of the great Seven, who were called to bring forth this universe after Ar(r)hetos, or the Ineffable, whose name is composed of seven letters, had represented the first hebdomad. This name (Ar(r)hetos) is one to indicate the Sevenfold nature of the One (the logos). “The goddess Rhea,” says Proclus in Timaeus (p. 121), “is a Monad, Duad, and Heptad,” comprehending in herself all the Titanidae, “who are seven.”
The Seven Creations are found in almost every Purana. They are all preceded by what Wilson translates — “the indiscrete Principle,” absolute Spirit independent of any relation with objects of sense. They are — (1) Mahattattwa, the Universal Soul, Infinite Intellect, or Divine Mind; (2) Bhuta or Bhutasarga, elemental creation, the first differentiation of Universal indiscrete Substance; (3) Indriya or Aindriyaka, organic evolution. “These three were the Prakrita creations, the developments of indiscrete nature preceded by indiscrete principle”; (4) Mukhya, the fundamental creation of perceptible things, was that of inanimate bodies; (5) Tairyagyonya, or Tiryaksrotas, was that of animals; (6) Urdhwasrotas, or that of divinities‡ (?); (7) Arvaksrotas, was that of man. (See Vishnu Purana.)
This is the order given in the exoteric texts. According to esoteric teaching there are seven primary, and seven secondary “creations;” the former being the Forces self-evolving from the one causeless force; the latter, showing the manifested Universe emanating from the already differentiated divine elements.
Esoterically, as well as exoterically, all the above enumerated Creations stand for the (7) periods of Evolution, whether after an “Age” or a “Day” of Brahma. This is the teaching par excellence of Occult Philosophy, which, however, never uses the term “creation,” nor even that of evolution, “with regard to primary ‘Creation’:” but calls all such forces “the aspects of the Causeless Force.” In the Bible
* Origen contra Celsum, b. vi., chap. xxii.
† The text says: “And the fourth creation is here the primary, for things immovable are emphatically known as primary.” (See Fitzedward Hall’s Corrections.)
‡ How can “divinities” have been created after the animals? The esoteric meaning of the expression “animals” is the germs of all animal life including man. Man is called a sacrificial animal, and an animal that is the only one among animal creation who sacrifices to the gods. Moreover, by the “sacred animals,” the 12 signs of the zodiac are often meant in the sacred texts, as already stated.
the seven periods are dwarfed into the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest, and the Westerns adhere to the letter. In the Hindu philosophy, when the active Creator has produced the world of gods, the germs of all the undifferentiated elements and the rudiments of future senses (the world of noumena, in short), the Universe remains unaltered for a “Day of Brahma,” a period of 4,320,000,000 years. This is the seventh passive period or the “Sabbath day” of Eastern philosophy, that follows six periods of active evolution. In the Satapatha Brahmana “Brahma” (neuter), the absolute Cause of all Causes, radiates the gods. Having radiated the gods (through its inherent nature) the work is interrupted. In the 1st Book of Manu it is said, “At the expiration of each night (pralaya) Brahma, having been asleep, awakes, and, through the sole energy of the motion, causes to emanate from itself the spirit, which in its essence is, and yet is not.”
In the Sepher Jezirah, the Kabalistic Book of Creation, the author has evidently repeated the words of Manu. In it the Divine Substance is represented as having alone existed from the eternity, boundless and absolute; and as having emitted from itself the Spirit. “One is the Spirit of the living God, blessed be his Name, who liveth for ever! Voice, Spirit, and Word, this is the Holy Spirit.” (Sepher Jezireh, chap. 1, Mishna IX.) And this is the Kabalistic abstract Trinity, so unceremoniously anthropomorphized by the Fathers. From this triple one emanated the whole Kosmos. First from one emanated number two, or Air, the creative element; and then number three, Water, proceeded from the air; Ether or Fire complete the mystic four, the Arba-il. (Ibid.) In the Eastern doctrine Fire is the first Element — Ether, synthesizing the whole (since it contains all of them).
In the Vishnu Purana, the whole seven periods are given, and the progressive Evolution of “Spirit-Soul,” and of the seven forms of matter (or principles) are shown. It is impossible to enumerate them in this work. The reader is asked to peruse one of the Puranas.
“R. Yehudah began, it is written: ‘Elohim said: Let there be a firmament, in the midst of waters. . . . . At the time that the Holy . . . created the world, He (they) created seven heavens Above. He created seven earths Below, seven seas, seven days, seven rivers, seven weeks, seven years, seven times, and 7,000 years that the world has been. . . . . the seventh of all the millennium. So here are seven earths Below, they are all inhabited except those which are above, and those . . . . below. And . . . . between each earth, a heaven (firmament) is spread out between each other. . . . . And there are in them (these earths) creatures who look different from each other . . . . but if you object and say that all the children of the world came out from Adam,
it is not so. . . . . And the lower earths, where do they come from? They are from the chain of the earth, and from the heaven below,” etc., etc.*
Irenaeus is our witness (and a very unwilling one, too) that the Gnostics taught the same system, veiling very carefully the true esoteric meaning. This “veiling,” however, is identical with that of the Vishnu Purana and others. Thus Irenaeus writes of the Marcosians: “They maintain that first of all the four elements, fire, water, earth and air, were produced after the image of the primary tetrad above, and that then if we add their operations, namely, heat, cold, dryness and moisture, an exact likeness of the ogdoad is presented.” (B. i. ch. xvii.)
Only this “likeness” and the ogdoad itself is a blind, just as in the seven creations of the Vishnu Puranas, to which two more are added of which the eighth, termed Anugraha, “possesses both the qualities of goodness and darkness,” a Sankhyan more than a Puranic idea. For Irenaeus says again (b. i. xxx. 6) that “they (the Gnostics) had a like eighth creation which was good and bad, divine and human. They affirm that man was formed on the eighth day. Sometimes they affirm that he was made on the sixth day, and at others on the eighth; unless, perchance, they mean that his earthly part was formed on the sixth day and his fleshly part (?) on the eighth day; these two being distinguished by them.”
They were so “distinguished,” but not as Irenaeus gives it. The Gnostics had a superior Hebdomad, and an inferior one, in Heaven; and a third terrestrial Hebdomad, on the plane of matter. Iao, the mystery god and the Regent of the Moon, as given in Origen’s chart, was the chief of these superior “Seven Heavens,”† hence identical with the chief of the lunar Pitris, that name being given by them to the lunar Dhyan-Chohans. “They affirm that these seven heavens are intelligent, and speak of them as being angels,” writes the same Irenaeus; and adds that on this account they termed Iao Hebdomas, while his mother was called “Ogdoas,” because, as he explains, “she preserved the number of the first begotten and primary Ogdoad of the Pleroma.” (Ibid. b. i, v. 2).
This “first begotten Ogdoad” was (a) in theogony the second Logos (the manifested) because he was born of the Seven-fold first Logos, hence he is the eighth on this manifested plane; and (b) in astrolatry, it was the Sun, Marttanda — the eighth son of Aditi, whom she rejects while preserving her Seven Sons, the planets. For the ancients have never regarded the Sun as a planet, but as a central and fixed Star. This, then, is the second Hebdomad born of the Seven-rayed one, Agni, the Sun
* Qabbalah, p. 415-16, by T. Myer, Philadelphia.
† Superior to the Spirits or “Heavens” of the Earth only.
and what not, only not the seven planets, which are Surya’s brothers, not his Sons. These Astral gods, whose chief with the Gnostics was Ildabaoth* (from Ilda “child,” and Baoth “the egg”), the son of Sophia Achamoth, the daughter of Sophia (Wisdom), whose region is the Pleroma, were his (Ildabaoth’s) sons. He produces from himself these six stellar spirits: Jove (Jehovah), Sabaoth, Adonai, Eloi, Osraios, Astaphaios,† and it is they who are the second, or inferior Hebdomad. As to the third, it is composed of the seven primeval men, the shadows of the lunar gods, projected by the first Hebdomad. In this the Gnostics did not, as seen, differ much from the esoteric doctrine except that they veiled it. As to the charge made by Irenaeus, who was evidently ignorant of the true tenets of the “Heretics,” with regard to man being created on the sixth day, and man being created on the eighth, this relates to the mysteries of the inner man. It will become comprehensible to the reader only after he has read Book II., and understood well the Anthropogenesis of the Esoteric doctrine.
Ildabaoth is a copy of Manu. The latter boasts, “Oh, best of twice-born men! Know that I (Manu) am he, the creator of all this world, whom that male Viraj . . . spontaneously produced” (I., 33). He first creates the ten lords of Being, the Prajapatis, who, as verse 36 says . . . “produce seven other Manus.” (The Ordinances of Manu.) Ildabaoth does likewise: “I am Father and God, and there is no one above me,” he exclaims. For which his mother coolly puts him down by saying, “Do not lie, Ildabaoth, for the father of all, the first man (Anthropos) is above thee, and so is Anthropos, the Son of Anthropos” (Irenaeus, b. i, ch. xxx., 6). This is a good proof that there were three Logoi (besides the Seven born of the First), one of these being the Solar Logos. And, again, who was that “Anthropos” himself, so much higher than Ildabaoth? The Gnostic records alone can solve this riddle. In Pistis Sophia the four-vowelled name Ieov is in each case accompanied by the epithet of “the Primal, or First man.” This shows again that the gnosis was but an echo of our archaic doctrine. The names answering to Parabrahm, to Brahm, and Manu (the first thinking man) are composed of one-vowelled, three-vowelled and seven-vowelled sounds. Marcus, whose philosophy was certainly more Pythagorean than anything else, speaks of a revelation to him of the seven heavens sounding each one vowel as they pronounced the seven names of the seven (angelic) hierarchies.
When spirit has permeated every minutest atom of the seven principles of Kosmos, then the secondary creation, after the above-mentioned period of rest, begins.
* See “Isis Unveiled,” Vol. II., p. 183.
† See also King’s Gnostics. Other sects regarded Jehovah as Ildabaoth himself King identifies him with Saturn.
“The creators (Elohim) outline in the second ‘hour’ the shape of man,” says Rabbi Simeon (The Nuctameron of the Hebrews). “There are twelve hours in the day,” says the Mishna, “and it is during these that creation is accomplished.” The “twelve hours of the day” are again the dwarfed copy, the faint, yet faithful, echo of primitive Wisdom. They are like the 12,000 divine years of the gods, a cyclic blind. Every “Day of Brahma” has 14 Manus, which the Hebrew Kabalists, following, however, in this the Chaldeans, have disguised into 12 “Hours.”* The Nuctameron of Apollonius of Tyana is the same thing. “The Dodecahedron lies concealed in the perfect Cube,” say the Kabalists. The mystic meaning of this is, that the twelve great transformations of Spirit into matter (the 12,000 divine years) take place during the four great ages, or the first Mahayuga. Beginning with the metaphysical and the supra-human, it ends in the physical and purely human natures of Kosmos and man. Eastern philosophy can give the number of mortal years that run along the line of spiritual and physical evolutions of the seen and the unseen, if Western science fails to do so.
Primary Creation is called the Creation of Light (Spirit); and the Secondary — that of Darkness (matter).† Both are found in Genesis, chap. i., v. 2, and at the beginning of chapter ii. The first is the emanation of self-born gods (Elohim); the second of physical nature.
This is why it is said in the Zohar: — “Oh, companions, companions, man as emanation was both man and woman; as well on the side of the Father as on the side of the Mother. And this is the sense of the words: — And Elohim spoke: ‘Let there be Light and it was Light!’ . . . And this is the ‘two-fold man ! ’ ” Light, moreover, on our plane, is darkness in the higher spheres.
“Man and woman on the side of the Father” (Spirit) refers to Primary Creation; and on the side of the Mother (matter) to the secondary. The two-fold man is Adam Kadmon, the male and female abstract prototype and the differentiated Elohim. Man proceeds from the Dhyan Chohan, and is a “Fallen Angel,” a god in exile, as will be shown.
In India these creations were described as follows: —
(I.) Mahat-tattwa creation — so-called because it was the primordial self-evolution of that which had to become Mahat — the “divine Mind, conscious and intelligent”; esoterically, “the spirit of the Universal soul.” . . . “Worthiest of ascetics, through its potency (the potency of that cause); every produced cause comes by its proper nature.” (Vishnu Purana.) “Seeing that the potencies of all beings are under-
* Elsewhere, however, the identity is revealed. See supra, the quotation from Ibn-Gabirol and his 7 heavens, 7 earths, etc.
† This must not be confused with precosmic “Darkness,” the Divine all.
stood only through the knowledge of That (Brahma), which is beyond reasoning, creation, and the like, such potencies are referable to Brahma.” That, then, precedes the manifestation. “The first was Mahat,” says Linga Purana; for the one (the That) is neither first nor last, but all. Exoterically, however, this manifestation is the work of the “Supreme One” (a natural effect, rather, of an Eternal Cause); or, as the Commentator says, it might have been understood to mean that Brahma was then created (?), being identified with Mahat, active intelligence or the operating will of the Supreme. Esoteric philosophy renders it “the operating law.”
It is on the right comprehension of this tenet in the Brahmanas and Puranas that hangs, we believe, the apple of discord between the three Vedantin Sects: the Advaita, Dwaita, and the Visishtadvaitas. The first arguing rightly that Parabrahman, having no relation, as the absolute all, to the manifested world — the Infinite having no connection with the finite — can neither will nor create; that, therefore, Brahma, Mahat, Iswara, or whatever name the creative power may be known by, creative gods and all, are simply an illusive aspect of Parabrahmam in the conception of the conceivers; while the other sects identify the impersonal Cause with the Creator, or Iswara.
Mahat (or Maha-Buddhi) is, with the Vaishnavas, however, divine mind in active operation, or, as Anaxagoras has it, “an ordering and disposing mind, which was the cause of all things,” — [[Nous o diakosmonte kai panton aitios]].
Wilson saw at a glance the suggestive connection between Mahat and the Phoenician Mot, or Mut, who was female with the Egyptians — the Goddess Mout, the “Mother” — “which, like Mahat,” he says, “was the first product of the mixture (?) of Spirit and matter, and the first rudiment of Creation:” “Ex connexione autem ejus spiritus prodidit Mot . . . . . From whose seed were created all living things” — repeats Brucker (I., 240) — giving it a still more materialistic and anthropomorphic colouring.
Nevertheless, the esoteric sense of the doctrine is seen through every exoteric sentence on the very face of the old Sanscrit texts that treat of primordial Creation. “The Supreme Soul, the all permeant (Sarvaga) Substance of the World, having entered (been drawn) into matter (prakriti) and Spirit (purusha), agitated the mutable and the immutable principles the season of Creation (manvantara) having arrived.”* . . .
* The nous of the Greeks, which is (spiritual or divine) mind, or mens, “Mahat,” operates upon matter in the same way; it “enters into” and agitates it:
“Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus,
Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet.”
In the Phoenician Cosmogony, “Spirit mixing with its own principles gives rise to [[Footnote continued on next page]]
Esoteric doctrine teaches that the Dhyan Chohans are the collective aggregate of divine Intelligence or primordial mind, and that the first Manus — the seven “mind-born” Spiritual Intelligences — are identical with the former. Hence the “Kwan-shi-yin” — “the golden Dragon in whom are the seven,” of Stanza III. — is the primordial Logos, or Brahma, the first manifested creative Power; and the Dhyani-Energies are the Manus, or Manu-Swayambhuva collectively. The direct connection, moreover, between the “Manus” and “Mahat” is easy to see. Manu is from the root man, “to think”; and thinking proceeds from the mind. It is, in Cosmogony, the pre-nebular period.
(II.) “The second Creation,” “Bhuta,” was of the rudimental principles (Tanmatras), thence termed the elemental creation (Bhuta-sarga).* It is the period of the first breath of the differentiation of the pre-Cosmic Elements or matter. Bhutadi means literally “the origin of the Elements,” and precedes Bhuta-sarga — the “creation” or differentiation of those Elements in primordial “Akasa” (Chaos or Vacuity).† In the “Vishnu Purana” it is said to proceed along, and belong to, the triple aspect of Ahankara, translated Egotism, but meaning rather that untranslateable term the “I-am-ness,” that which first issues from “Mahat,” or divine mind; the first shadowy outline of Self-hood, for “pure” Ahankara becomes “passionate” and finally “rudimental”
[[Footnote continued from previous page]] creation” also; (Brucker, I., 240); the Orphic triad shows an identical doctrine: for there Phanes (or Eros), Chaos, containing crude undifferentiated Cosmic matter, and Chronos (time), are the three co-operating principles, emanating from the Unknowable and concealed point, which produce the work of “Creation.” And they are the Hindu Purusha (phanes), Pradhana (chaos), and Kala (Chronos) or time. The good Professor Wilson does not like the idea, as no Christian clergyman, however liberal, would. He remarks that “as presently explained,. the mixture (of the Supreme Spirit or Soul) is not mechanical; it is an influence or effect exerted upon intermediate agents which produce effects.” The sentence in Vishnu Purana: “As fragrance affects the mind from its proximity merely, and not from any immediate operation upon mind itself, so the Supreme influenced the elements of creation,” the reverend and erudite Sanscritist correctly explains . . . : “As perfumes do not delight the mind by actual contact, but by the impression they make upon the sense of smelling, which communicates it to the mind,” adding: “The entrance of the Supreme into spirit, as well as matter, is less intelligible than the view elsewhere taken of it, as the infusion of spirit, identified with the supreme, into Prakriti or matter alone.” He prefers the verse in Padma Purana: “He who is called the male (spirit) of Prakriti . . . that same divine Vishnu entered into Prakriti.” This “view” is certainly more akin to the plastic character of certain verses in the Bible concerning the Patriarchs, such as Lot (Gen. xix., 34-38) and even Adam (iv., v. 1), and others of a still more anthropomorphic nature. But it is just that which led Humanity to Phallicism, Christian religion being honeycombed with it, from the first chapter of Genesis down to the Revelation.
* All these sentences are quoted from “Vishnu Purana,” Book I., ch. ii.
† Vishnu is both Bhutesa, “Lord of the Elements, and all things,” and Viswarupa, “Universal Substance or Soul.”
(initial); it is “the origin of conscious as of all unconscious being,” though the Esoteric school rejects the idea of anything being “unconscious” — save on this (our) plane of illusion and ignorance. At this stage of the Second Creation, the second hierarchy of the Manus appear, the Dhyan Chohans or Devas, who are the origin of Form (rupa): the Chitrasikhandina (bright-crested) or the Riksha — those Rishis who have become the informing souls of the seven stars (of the Great Bear).* In astronomical and Cosmogonical language this Creation relates to the first stage of Cosmic-life, the Fire-Mist Period after its Chaotic stage,† when atoms issue from Laya.
(III.) The third (the Indriya) was the modified form of Ahankara, the conception of “I,” (from “Aham,” “I”) termed the organic Creation, or creation of the senses (Aindriyaka). “These three were the Prakrita creation, the (discrete) developments of indiscrete nature preceded by the indiscrete principle.” “Preceded by,” ought to be replaced here with “beginning by,” Buddhi; for the latter is neither a discrete nor an indiscrete quantity, but partakes of the nature of both, in man as in Kosmos: a unit — a human monad on the plane of illusion — when once freed from the three forms of Ahankara and liberated from its terrestrial manas, Buddhi becomes truly a continued quantity, both in duration and extension, because eternal and immortal. Earlier it is stated, that the third Creation “abounding with the quality of goodness, is termed Urdhvasrotas;” and a page or two further the Urdhvasrotas creation is referred to as “the sixth creation . . . that of the divinities” (p. 75). This shows plainly that earlier as well as later manvantaras have been purposely confused, to prevent the pro-
* See concerning their post-types, the Treatise written by Trithemius (Agrippa’s master, 16th cent.). “Concerning the seven secondaries, or Spiritual Intelligences, who, after God, actuate the Universe;” giving out, besides secret cycles and several prophecies, certain facts and beliefs about the Genii, or the Elohim, which preside over and guide the septenary stages of the World’s Course.
† From the first, the Orientalists have found themselves beset by great difficulties with regard to any possible order in the Puranic Creations. Brahma is very often confused with Brahma, by Wilson, for which he is criticised by his successors. The “Original Sanscrit Texts” are preferred by Mr. Fitzedward Hall for the translation of Vishnu Purana and texts, to those used by Wilson. “Had Professor Wilson enjoyed the advantages which are now at the command of the student of Indian philosophy, unquestionably he would have expressed himself differently,” as said by the editor of his works. This reminds one of the answer given by one of Thomas Taylor’s admirers to those scholars who criticised his translations of Plato. “Thomas Taylor may have had less knowledge of the Greek than his critics have, but he understood Plato far better than they do,” he said. Our present Orientalists disfigure the mystic sense of the Sanskrit texts far more than Wilson ever did, though the latter is undeniably guilty of very gross errors.
fane from perceiving the truth. This is called “incongruity” and “contradictions” by the Orientalists.*
This “creation” of the immortals, the “Deva-Sarga,” is the last of the first series, and has a universal reference; namely, to Evolutions in general, not specifically to our Manvantara; but the latter begins with the same over and over again, showing that it refers to several distinct Kalpas. For it is said “at the close of the past (Padma) Kalpa the divine Brahma awoke from his night of sleep and beheld the universe void.” Then Brahma is shown going once more over the “seven creations” in the secondary stage of evolution, repeating the first three on the objective plane.
(IV.) The Mukhya, the Primary as it begins the series of four. Neither the word “inanimate” bodies nor yet immovable things, as translated by Wilson, gives a correct idea of the Sanskrit terms used. Esoteric philosophy is not the only one to reject the idea of any atom being inorganic, for it is found also in orthodox Hinduism. Moreover, Wilson himself says (in his collected Works, vol. iii., p. 381): “All the Hindu systems consider vegetable bodies as endowed with life . . . ” Charachara, or the synonymous sthavara and jangama, is, therefore, inaccurately rendered by “animate and inanimate,” “sentient beings,” and “unconscious,” or “conscious and unconscious beings,” etc., etc. “Locomotive and fixed” would be better, since trees are considered to possess souls.” Mukhya is the “creation” or organic evolution of the vegetable kingdom. In this secondary Period, the three degrees of Elemental or Rudimental Kingdoms are evolved in this world, corresponding inversely in order to the three Prakritic creations during the Primary period of Brahma’s activity. As in that period, in the words of “Vishnu Purana”: “The first creation was that of Mahat (Intellect), the second, of Tanmatras (rudimental principles), and the third, that of the senses (Aindriyaka)”; in this one, the order of the Elemental Forces stands thus: (1) The nascent centres of Force (intellectual and physical); (2) the rudimental principles — nerve force, so to say; and (3) nascent apperception, which is the Mahat of the lower kingdoms, especially developed in the third order of Elementals; these are succeeded by the
* “The three Creations beginning with Intelligence are elemental, but the six creations which proceed from the series of which Intellect is the first are the work of Brahma” (Vayu-Purana). Here “creations” mean everywhere stages of Evolution. Mahat, “Intellect” or mind (which corresponds with Manas, the former being on the Cosmic, and the latter on the human plane) stands here, too, lower than Buddhi or Supra-divine Intelligence. Therefore, when we read in Linga Purana that “the first Creation was that of Mahat, Intellect being the first in manifestation,” we must refer that (specified) creation to the first evolution of our system or even our Earth, none of the preceding ones being discussed in the Puranas, but only occasionally hinted at.
objective kingdom of minerals, in which latter that apperception is entirely latent, to re-develop only in the plants). The mukhya “Creation,” then, is the middle point between the three lower and the three higher kingdoms, which represent the seven esoteric kingdoms of Kosmos, as of Earth.
(V.) The Tiryaksrotas (or Tairyagyonya) creation,* that of the “(sacred) animals,” corresponding only on Earth, to the dumb animal creation. That which is meant by “animals,” in primary Creation, is the germ of awakening consciousness or of apperception, that which is faintly traceable in some sensitive plants on Earth and more distinctly in the protistic monera.† On our globe, during the first round, animal “creation” precedes that of man, while the former (or mammal) evolves from the latter in our fourth round — on the physical plane: in Round I. the animal atoms are drawn into a cohesion of human physical form; while in Round IV. the reverse occurs according to magnetic conditions developed during life. And this is metempsychosis (See “Mineral Monad” in “Five Years of Theosophy,” p. 276). This fifth stage of evolution, called exoterically “Creation,” may be viewed in both the Primary and Secondary periods, one as the Spiritual and Cosmic, the other as the material and terrestrial. It is Archibiosis, or life-origination — “origination,” so far, of course, as the manifestation of life on all the seven planes is concerned. It is at this period of Evolution that the absolutely eternal universal motion, or vibration, that which is called in Esoteric language “the great breath,” differentiates in the primordial, first manifested atom. More and more, as chemical and physical sciences progress, does this occult axiom find its corroboration in the world of knowledge: the scientific hypothesis, that even the simplest elements of matter are identical in nature and differ from each other only owing to the variety of the distributions of atoms in the molecule or speck of substance, or by the modes of its atomic vibration, gains every day more ground.
Thus, as the differentiation of the primordial germ of life has to precede the evolution of the Dhyan Chohan of the third group or hierarchy of Being in Primary Creation, before those “gods” can become rupa (embodied in their first ethereal form), so animal creation has to precede,
* Professor Wilson translates it, as though animals were higher on the scale of “creation” than divinities, or angels, although the truth about the devas is very plainly stated further on. This “creation,” says the text, is both primary (Prakrita) and secondary (Vaikrita). It is the latter, as regards the origin of the gods from Brahma (the personal anthropomorphic creator of our material universe); it is the former (primary) as affecting Rudra, who is the immediate production of the first principle. Rudra is not alone a title of Siva, but embraces agents of creation, angels and men, as will be shown further on.
† Neither plant nor animal, but an existence between the two.
for that same reason, divine man on earth. And this is why we find in the Puranas: “The fifth, the Tairyagyonya creation, was that of animals, and —
(VI). The Urdhvasrotas creation, or that of divinities (Vishnu Purana Book I. chap. i.). But these (divinities) are simply the prototypes of the First Race, the fathers of their “mind-born” progeny with the soft bones.* It is these who became the Evolvers of the “Sweat-born” — an expression explained in Book II. Finally, the sixth “Creation” is followed, and “Creation in general, closed by —
(VII.) The evolution of the “Arvaksrotas beings, which was the seventh, and was that of man” (Vishnu Purana, Book I.).
The “eighth creation” mentioned is no Creation at all; it is a blind again, for it refers to a purely mental process: the cognition of the “ninth” creation, which, in its turn, is an effect, manifesting in the secondary of that which was a “Creation” in the Primary (Prakrita) Creation.† The Eighth, then, called Anugraha (the Pratyayasarga or the intellectual creation of the Sankhyas, explained in Karika, v. 46, p. 146), is “that creation of which we have a perception” — in its esoteric aspect — and “to which we give intellectual assent (Anugraha) in contradistinction to organic creation.” It is the correct perception of our relations to the whole range of “gods” and especially of those we bear to the Kumaras — the so-called “Ninth Creation” — which is in reality an aspect of or reflection of the sixth in our manvantara (the Vaivasvata). “There is a ninth, the Kumara Creation, which is both primary and secondary,” says Vishnu Purana, the oldest of such texts.‡ “The Kumaras,” explains an esoteric text,
* “Created beings” — explains Vishnu Purana — “although they are destroyed (in their individual forms) at the periods of dissolution, yet being affected by the good or evil acts of former existences, are never exempted from their consequences. And when Brahma produces the world anew, they are the progeny of his will . . .” “Collecting his mind into itself (Yoga willing), Brahma creates the four orders of beings, termed gods, demons, progenitors, and MEN” . . . “progenitors” meaning the prototypes and Evolvers of the first Root Race of men. The progenitors are the Pitris, and are of seven classes. They are said in exoteric mythology to be born of Brahma’s side, like Eve from the rib of Adam.
† “These notions,” remarks Dr. Wilson, “the birth of Rudra and the saints, seem to have been borrowed from the Saivas, and to have been awkwardly engrafted upon the Vaishnava system.” The esoteric meaning ought to have been consulted before venturing such a hypothesis.
‡ Parasara, the Vedic Rishi, who received the Vishnu Purana from Pulastya and taught it to Maitreya, is placed by the Orientalists at various epochs. As correctly observed, in the Hindu Class. Dict: — “Speculations as to his era differ widely from 575 B.C. to 1391 B.C., and cannot be trusted.” Quite so; but no less, however, than any other date as assigned by the Sanskritists, so famous in this department of arbitrary fancy.
“are the Dhyanis, derived immediately from the supreme Principle, who reappear in the Vaivasvata Manu period, for the progress of mankind.”* The commentator of the Vishnu Purana corroborates it, by remarking that “these sages live as long as Brahma; and they are only created by him in the first Kalpa, although their generation is very commonly and inconsistently introduced in the Varaha, or Padma Kalpa” (the secondary). Thus, the Kumaras are, exoterically, “the creation of Rudra or Nilalohita, a form of Siva, by Brahma, and of certain other mind-born sons of Brahma. But, in the esoteric teaching, they are the progenitors of the true spiritual self in the physical man — the higher Prajapati, while the Pitris, or lower Prajapati, are no more than the fathers of the model, or type of his physical form, made “in their image.” Four (and occasionally five) are mentioned freely in the exoteric texts, three Kumaras being secret.† (Compare what is said of “The Fallen Angels” in Book II.).
The Exoteric four are: Sanat-Kumara, Sananda, Sanaka, and Sanatana; and the esoteric three are: Sana, Kapila, and Sanat-sujata. Special attention is once more drawn to this class of Dhyan Chohans, for herein lies the mystery of generation and heredity hinted at in Book I. (See the four Orders of Angelic Beings; Comment on Stanza VII.). Book II. explains their position in the divine Hierarchy. Meanwhile, let us see what the exoteric texts say about them.
They do not say much; nothing to him who fails to read between the lines. “We must have recourse, here, to other Puranas for the elucidation of this term,” remarks Wilson, who does not suspect for one moment that he is in the presence of the “Angels of Darkness,” the mythical “great enemy” of his Church. Therefore, he contrives to elucidate no more than that these (divinities) declining to create progeny‡ (and thus rebelling against Brahma), remained, as the name
* They may indeed mark a “special” or extra creation, since it is they who, by incarnating themselves within the senseless human shells of the two first Root-races, and a great portion of the Third Root-race — create, so to speak, a new race: that of thinking, self-conscious and divine men.
† “The four Kumaras (are) the mind-born Sons of Brahma. Some specify seven” (H. Class. Dict.). All these seven Vaidhatra, the patronymic of the Kumaras, “the Maker’s Sons,” are mentioned and described in Iswara Krishna’s “Sankhya Karika” with the Commentary of Gaudapadacharya (Sankaracharya’s Paraguru) attached to it. It discusses the nature of the Kumaras, though it refrains from mentioning by name all the seven Kumaras, but calls them instead “the seven sons of Brahma,” which they are, as they are created by Brahma in Rudra. The list of names it gives us is: Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatana, Kapila, Ribhu, and Panchasikha. But these are again all aliases.
‡ So untrustworthy are some translations of the Orientalists that in the French Translation of Hari-Vamsa, it is said “The seven Prajapati, Rudra, Skanda (his son) [[Footnote continued on next page]]
of the first implies, ever boys, Kumaras: that is, ever pure and innocent, whence their creation is also called the “Kumara.” (Book I. chap. v., Vishnu Purana.) The Puranas, however, may afford a little more light. “Being ever as he was born, he is here called a youth; and hence his name is well known as Sanat-Kumara” (Linga purana, prior section LXX. 174.) In the Saiva Purana, the Kumaras are always described as Yogins. The Kurma Purana, after enumerating them, says: “These five, O Brahmans, were Yogins, who acquired entire exemption from passion.” They are five, because two of the Kumaras fell.
Of all the seven great divisions of Dhyan-Chohans, or Devas, there is none with which humanity is more concerned than with the Kumaras. Imprudent are the Christian Theologians who have degraded them into fallen Angels, and now call them “Satan” and Demons; as among these heavenly denizens who refuse to create, the Archangel Michael — the greatest patron Saint of Western and Eastern Churches, under his double name of St. Michael and his supposed copy on earth, St. George conquering the Dragon — has to be allowed one of the most prominent places. (See Book II., “The Sacred Dragons and their Slayers.”)
The Kumaras, the “mind-born Sons” of Brahma-Rudra (or Siva)
[[Footnote continued from previous page]] and Sanat-Kumara proceeded to create beings.” Whereas, as Wilson shows, the original is: “These seven . . . created progeny; and so did Rudra, but Skanda and Sanat Kumara, restraining their power, abstained from creation.” The “four orders of beings” are referred to sometimes as “Ambhamsi,” which Wilson renders: “literally Waters,” and believes it “a mystic term.” It is one, no doubt; but he evidently failed to catch the real esoteric meaning. “Waters” and “water” stand as the symbol for Akasa, the “primordial Ocean of Space,” on which Narayana, the self-born Spirit, moves: reclining on that which is its progeny (See Manu). “Water is the body of Nara; thus we have heard the name of water explained. Since Brahma rests on the water, therefore he is termed Narayana” (Linga, Vayu, and Markandeya Puranas) “. . . Pure, Purusha created the waters pure . . .” at the same time Water is the third principle in material Kosmos, and the third in the realm of the Spiritual: Spirit of Fire, Flame, Akasa, Ether, Water, Air, Earth, are the cosmic, sidereal, psychic, spiritual and mystic principles, pre-eminently occult, in every plane of being. “Gods, Demons, Pitris and men,” are the four orders of beings to whom the term Ambhamsi is applied (in the Vedas it is a synonym of gods): because they are all the product of waters (mystically), of the Akasic Ocean, and of the Third principle in nature. Pitris and men on earth are the transformations (rebirths) of gods and demons (Spirits) on a higher plane. Water is, in another sense, the feminine principle. Venus Aphrodite is the personified Sea, and the mother of the god of love, the generator of all the gods as much as the Christian Virgin Mary is Mare (the sea), the mother of the Western God of Love, Mercy and Charity. If the student of Esoteric philosophy thinks deeply over the subject he is sure to find out all the suggestiveness of the term Ambhamsi, in its manifold relations to the Virgin in Heaven, to the Celestial Virgin of the Alchemists, and even to the “Waters of Grace” of the modern Baptist.
the howling and terrific destroyer of human passions and physical senses, which are ever in the way of the development of the higher spiritual perceptions and the growth of the inner eternal man — mystically,* are the progeny of Siva, the Mahayogi, the great patron of all the Yogis and mystics of India. They themselves, being the “Virgin-Ascetics,” refuse to create the material being man. Well may they be suspected of a direct connection with the Christian Archangel Michael, the “Virgin Combatant” of the Dragon Apophis, whose victim is every soul united too loosely to its immortal Spirit, the Angel who, as shown by the Gnostics, refused to create just as the Kumaras did. (See Book II., “The Mystic Dragons and their Slayers.”). . . Does not that patron-Angel of the Jews preside over Saturn (Siva or Rudra), and the Sabbath, the day of Saturn? Is he not shown of the same essence with his father (Saturn), and called the “Son of Time,” Kronos, or Kala (time), a form of Brahma (Vishnu and Siva)?” And is not “Old Time” of the Greeks, with its scythe and sand-glass, identical with the “Ancient of Days” of the Kabalists, the latter “Ancient” being one with the Hindu “Ancient of Days,” Brahma (in his triune form), whose name is also “Sanat,” the Ancient? Every Kumara bears the prefix of Sanat and Sana; and Sanaischara is Saturn, the planet (Sani and Sarra), the King Saturn whose Secretary in Egypt was Thot-Hermes the first. They are thus identified both with the planet and the god (Siva), who are, in their turn, shown the prototypes of Saturn, who is the same as Bel, Baal, Siva, and Jehovah Sabbaoth, The angel of whose face is Mikael ( “who is as God”). He is the patron, and guardian Angel of the Jews, as Daniel tells us (v. 21); and, before the Kumaras were degraded, by those who were ignorant of their very name, into demons and fallen angels, the Greek Ophites, the occultly inclined predecessors and precursors of the Roman Catholic Church after its secession and separation from the primitive Greek Church, had identified Michael with their Ophiomorphos, the rebellious and opposing spirit. This means nothing more than the reverse aspect (symbolically) of Ophis — divine Wisdom or Christos. In the Talmud, Mikael (Michael) is “Prince of Water” and the chief of the seven Spirits, for the same reason that his prototype (among many others) Sanat-Sujata,
* Siva-Rudra is the Destroyer, as Vishnu is the preserver; and both are the regenerators of spiritual as well as of physical nature. To live as a plant, the seed must die. To live as a conscious entity in the Eternity, the passions and senses of man must first die before his body does. “To live is to die and to die is to live,” has been too little understood in the West. Siva, the destroyer, is the creator and the Saviour of Spiritual man, as he is the good gardener of nature. He weeds out the plants, human and cosmic, and kills the passions of the physical, to call to life the perceptions of the spiritual, man.
— the chief of the Kumaras — is called Ambhamsi, “Waters,” — according to the commentary on Vishnu Purana. Why? Because the “Waters” is another name of the “Great Deep,” the primordial Waters of space or Chaos, and also means “Mother,” Amba, meaning Aditi and Akasa, the Celestial Virgin-Mother of the visible universe. Furthermore, the “Waters of the flood” are also called “the Great Dragon,” or Ophis, Ophio-Morphos.
The Rudras will be noticed in their Septenary character of “Fire-Spirits” in the “Symbolism” attached to the Stanzas in Book II. There we shall also consider the Cross (3 + 4) under its primeval and later forms, and shall use for purposes of comparison the Pythagorean numbers side by side with Hebrew Metrology. The immense importance of the number seven will thus become evident, as the root number of nature. We shall examine it from the standpoints of the Vedas and the Chaldean Scriptures, as it existed in Egypt thousands of years B.C., and as treated in the Gnostic records; we shall show how its importance as a basic number has gained recognition in physical Science; and we shall endeavour to prove that the importance attached to the number seven throughout all antiquity was due to no fanciful imaginings of uneducated priests, but to a profound knowledge of natural law.
[[This page continued in next section]]