Teopedia

HPB-SD(ed.1) v.2 p.1 st.12 sl.47-49 ch.Our Divine Instructors: Difference between revisions

Page Addition

HPB-SD(ed.1) v.2 p.1 st.12 sl.47-49 ch.Our Divine Instructors (view source)

Revision as of 03:04, 24 February 2026

54 bytes added ,  24 February
m
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{HPB-SD-header | volume = 2 | part = 1 | stanza = 12 | stanza title = The Fifth Race and Its Divine Instructors | sloka = 47-49 | sloka title = The remnants of the firs...")
 
mNo edit summary
 
Line 183: Line 183:
{{Style P-No indent|''universal ''tradition force reason to yield to such evidence. Of what value is ''independent criticism ''so called, or “ internal evidence ” (based usually on the respective hobbies of the critics), in the face of the universal testimony, which never varied throughout the historical cycles ? Read esoterically the sixth chapter of Genesis, which repeats the statements of the Secret Doctrine, only changing slightly its form, and drawing a different conclusion which clashes even with the ''Zohar. ''“ There were giants in the earth in those days ; and ''also after that ''when ‘ the Sons of God ’ (''b''’''ne-aleim'') “ came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became ''mighty men ''which were of old, men of renown ” (or giants). *}}
{{Style P-No indent|''universal ''tradition force reason to yield to such evidence. Of what value is ''independent criticism ''so called, or “ internal evidence ” (based usually on the respective hobbies of the critics), in the face of the universal testimony, which never varied throughout the historical cycles ? Read esoterically the sixth chapter of Genesis, which repeats the statements of the Secret Doctrine, only changing slightly its form, and drawing a different conclusion which clashes even with the ''Zohar. ''“ There were giants in the earth in those days ; and ''also after that ''when ‘ the Sons of God ’ (''b''’''ne-aleim'') “ came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became ''mighty men ''which were of old, men of renown ” (or giants). *}}


What does this sentence “ and also after that ” signify unless it means when explained : “ There were giants in the earth before, ''i.e''., before the sinless sons of the Third Race ; and ''also after that ''when other sons of God, lower in nature, inaugurated sexual connection on earth (as Daksha did, when he saw that his ''Manasaputras ''would not people the earth) ” ? And then comes a long break in this chapter vi. of Genesis, between verses 4 and 5. For surely, it was not in or through the wickedness of the “ mighty men ” . . . . men of renown, among whom is placed Nimrod the “ mighty hunter before the Lord,” that “ god saw that the wickedness of man ''was ''great,” nor in the builders of Babel, for this was ''after ''the Deluge ; but in the progeny of the giants who produced ''monstra quædam de genere giganteo'', monsters from whence sprang the lower races of men, now represented on earth by a few miserable dying-out tribes and the huge anthropoid apes.
What does this sentence “ and also after that ” signify unless it means when explained : “ There were giants in the earth {{Style S-Small capitals|before}}, ''i.e''., before the sinless sons of the Third Race ; and ''also after that ''when other sons of God, lower in nature, inaugurated sexual connection on earth (as Daksha did, when he saw that his ''Manasaputras ''would not people the earth) ” ? And then comes a long break in this chapter vi. of Genesis, between verses 4 and 5. For surely, it was not in or through the wickedness of the “ mighty men ” . . . . men of renown, among whom is placed Nimrod the “ mighty hunter before the Lord,” that “ god saw that the wickedness of man ''was ''great,” nor in the builders of Babel, for this was ''after ''the Deluge ; but in the progeny of the giants who produced ''monstra quædam de genere giganteo'', monsters from whence sprang the lower races of men, now represented on earth by a few miserable dying-out tribes and the huge anthropoid apes.


And if we are taken to task by theologians, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, we have only to refer them to their own literal texts. The above quoted verse was ever a dilemma, not alone for the men of science and Biblical scholars, but also for priests. For, as the Rev. Father Peronne puts it : — “ Either they (the B’ne-aleim) were good angels, and in such case how could they fall ? Or they were bad (angels) and in this case could not be called ''b''’''ne-aleim'', the “ sons of God''.''” ''(Prælectiones theol. ch. ''ii.) This Biblical riddle — “ the real sense of which no author has ever understood,” as candidly confessed by Fourmont † —  can only be explained by the Occult doctrine, through the Zohar to the Western, and the ''Book of Dzyan ''to the Eastern. What the former says we have seen ; what the Zohar tells us is this : ''B''’''ne-aleim ''was a name common to the ''Malachim ''(the good Messengers) and to the ''Ischin ''(“ the lower angels ”) (''Rabbi Parcha'').
And if we are taken to task by theologians, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, we have only to refer them to their own literal texts. The above quoted verse was ever a dilemma, not alone for the men of science and Biblical scholars, but also for priests. For, as the Rev. Father Peronne puts it : — “ Either they (the B’ne-aleim) were good angels, and in such case how could they fall ? Or they were bad (angels) and in this case could not be called ''b''’''ne-aleim'', the “ sons of God''.''” ''(Prælectiones theol. ch. ''ii.) This Biblical riddle — “ the real sense of which no author has ever understood,” as candidly confessed by Fourmont † —  can only be explained by the Occult doctrine, through the Zohar to the Western, and the ''Book of Dzyan ''to the Eastern. What the former says we have seen ; what the Zohar tells us is this : ''B''’''ne-aleim ''was a name common to the ''Malachim ''(the good Messengers) and to the ''Ischin ''(“ the lower angels ”) (''Rabbi Parcha'').
Line 201: Line 201:
Now the Zohar says that the ''Ischin'', the beautiful ''B''’''ne-aleim'', were ''not ''guilty, but mixed ''themselves with mortal men because they were sent on earth to do so. ''(''Book of Ruth and Schadash ; fol. ''63, ''col. ''3 ;'' Amsterdam edition''). Elsewhere the same volume shows these ''b''’''ne-aleim ''belonging to the tenth sub-division of the “ Thrones ” (''Zohar'', ''part iii.'', ''col. ''113''. But see also ''1''st vol. ''184). It also explains that the Ischin, “ men-spirits,” ''viri spirituales'', now that men can see them no longer, help magicians to produce, through their science, ''homunculi ''which are not ''small men ''but “ men ''smaller ''(in the sense of ''inferiority'') than men.” Both show themselves under the form that the Ischin had then, ''i.e''., gaseous and ethereal. Their chief is Azazel.
Now the Zohar says that the ''Ischin'', the beautiful ''B''’''ne-aleim'', were ''not ''guilty, but mixed ''themselves with mortal men because they were sent on earth to do so. ''(''Book of Ruth and Schadash ; fol. ''63, ''col. ''3 ;'' Amsterdam edition''). Elsewhere the same volume shows these ''b''’''ne-aleim ''belonging to the tenth sub-division of the “ Thrones ” (''Zohar'', ''part iii.'', ''col. ''113''. But see also ''1''st vol. ''184). It also explains that the Ischin, “ men-spirits,” ''viri spirituales'', now that men can see them no longer, help magicians to produce, through their science, ''homunculi ''which are not ''small men ''but “ men ''smaller ''(in the sense of ''inferiority'') than men.” Both show themselves under the form that the Ischin had then, ''i.e''., gaseous and ethereal. Their chief is Azazel.


But Azazel, whom the Church dogma will associate with Satan, is nothing of the kind. Azazel is a ''mystery'', as explained elsewhere, and it is so expressed in Maimonides, “ ''In More Nevochim ”'' (''chapter xxvi.'', ''p. ''8). “ There is an impenetrable mystery in the narrative concerning Azazel.” And so there is, as Lanci, a librarian to the Vatican and one who ought to know, says —  we have quoted him before — that “ this venerable divine name (''nome divino e venerabile'') has become through the pen of Biblical scholars, a ''devil'', a wilderness, a mountain, and a he-goat ” (''Sagra Scrittura''). Therefore it seems foolish to derive the name as Spencer does, from ''Ajál ''(separated) and ''El ''(god), hence “ one separated from God,” the Devil. In the Zohar, Azazel is rather the Sacrificial victim than the “ formal adversary of Jehovah,” as Spencer would have it ''(II.'', ''pp. ''14, 29). The amount of malicious fancy and fiction bestowed on that “ Host ” by various fanatical writers is quite extraordinary. Azazel and his “ host ” are simply the Hebrew “ Prometheus,” and ought to be viewed from the same standpoint. The Zohar shows the ''Ischin ''chained on the mountain in the desert, allegorically ; thus simply alluding to those “ spirits ” as being chained to the earth during the cycle of incarnation. Azazel (or Azaziel) is one of the chiefs of the “ transgressing ” angels in ''Enoch'', who descending upon Ardis, the top of Mount Armon, bound themselves by swearing loyalty to each other. It is said that Azaziel taught men to make swords, knives, shields, to fabricate mirrors (?) to make ''one see what is behind him ''(viz., “ ''magic mirrors ”''). Amazarak taught all the sorcerers and dividers of roots ; Amers taught the solution of magic ; Barkayal, astrology ; Akibeel, the meaning of portents and signs ; Tamial, astronomy ; and Asaradel taught the motion of the moon. “ These seven were the first instructors of the Fourth man ” (''i.e.'', of the ''Fourth ''Race). But why should allegory be always understood as meaning all that its dead-letter expresses ?
But Azazel, whom the Church dogma will associate with Satan, is nothing of the kind. Azazel is a ''mystery'', as explained elsewhere, and it is so expressed in Maimonides, “ ''In More Nevochim ”'' (''chapter xxvi.'', ''p. ''8). “ There is an impenetrable mystery in the narrative concerning Azazel.” And so there is, as Lanci, a librarian to the Vatican and one who ought to know, says —  we have quoted him before — that “ this venerable divine name (''nome divino e venerabile'') has become through the pen of Biblical scholars, a ''devil'', a wilderness, a mountain, and a he-goat ” (''Sagra Scrittura''). Therefore it seems foolish to derive the name as Spencer does, from ''Ajál ''(separated) and ''El ''(god), hence “ one separated from God,” the {{Style S-Small capitals|Devil}}. In the Zohar, Azazel is rather the Sacrificial victim than the “ formal adversary of Jehovah,” as Spencer would have it ''(II.'', ''pp. ''14, 29). The amount of malicious fancy and fiction bestowed on that “ Host ” by various fanatical writers is quite extraordinary. Azazel and his “ host ” are simply the Hebrew “ Prometheus,” and ought to be viewed from the same standpoint. The Zohar shows the ''Ischin ''chained on the mountain in the desert, allegorically ; thus simply alluding to those “ spirits ” as being chained to the earth during the cycle of incarnation. Azazel (or Azaziel) is one of the chiefs of the “ transgressing ” angels in ''Enoch'', who descending upon Ardis, the top of Mount Armon, bound themselves by swearing loyalty to each other. It is said that Azaziel taught men to make swords, knives, shields, to fabricate mirrors (?) to make ''one see what is behind him ''(viz., “ ''magic mirrors ”''). Amazarak taught all the sorcerers and dividers of roots ; Amers taught the solution of magic ; Barkayal, astrology ; Akibeel, the meaning of portents and signs ; Tamial, astronomy ; and Asaradel taught the motion of the moon. “ These seven were the first instructors of the Fourth man ” (''i.e.'', of the ''Fourth ''Race). But why should allegory be always understood as meaning all that its dead-letter expresses ?


{{Page|377|the fallacies of the two churches.}}
{{Page|377|the fallacies of the two churches.}}
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/33922"