Footnotes:

1. See Genesis ch. ii., v. 19. Adam is formed in verse 7, and in verse 19 it is said: “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.” Thus man was created before the animals; for the animals mentioned in chapter i. are the signs of the Zodiac, while the man, “male and female,” is not man, but the Host of the Sephiroth; Forces, or Angels, “made in his (God’s) image and after his likeness.” The Adam, man, is not made in that likeness, nor is it so asserted in the Bible. Moreover, the Second Adam is esoterically a septenary which represents seven men, or rather groups of men. For the first Adam — the Kadmon — is the synthesis of the ten Sephiroth. Of these, the upper triad remains in the Archetypal World as the future “Trinity,” while the seven lower Sephiroth create the manifested material world; and this septenate is the second Adam. Genesis, and the mysteries upon which it was fabricated, came from Egypt. The “God” of the 1st chapter of Genesis is the Logos, and the “Lord God” of the 2nd chapter the Creative Elohim — the lower powers.

2. Thus saith Pymander — “This is the mystery that to this day was hidden. Nature being mingled with the Heavenly man (Elohim, or Dhyanis), brought forth a wonder . . . . Seven men, all males and females (Hermaphrodite) . . . according to the nature of the seven Governors” — Book II. v. 29) — or the seven Hosts of the Pitris or Elohim, who projected or created him. This is very clear, but yet, see the interpretations of even our modern theologians, men supposed to be intellectual and learned! In the “Theological and philosophical works of Hermes Trismegistus, Christian (?) Neoplatonist,” a work compiled by John David Chambers, of Oriel College, Oxford, the translator wonders “for whom these seven men are intended?” He solves the difficulty by concluding that, as “the original pattern man (Adam Kadmon of ch. i. Genesis) was masculine-feminine, the seven may signify the succeeding patriarchs named in Genesis” (p. 9) . . . A truly theological way of cutting the Gordian knot.

3. As it is now asserted that the Chaldean tablets, which give the allegorical description of Creation, the Fall, and the Flood, even to the legend of the Tower of Babel, were written “before the time of Moses” (See G. Smith’s “Chaldean Account of Genesis,” p. 86), how can the Pentateuch be called a revelation? It is simply another version of the same story.

4. Vide § “Adam-Adami,” in Part II. of this volume.

5. See Pliny, 4, c. 12; Strabo, 10; Herodotus, 7, c. 108; Pausanias, 7, c. 4, etc.

6. By “original” we mean the “Amshaspend,” called “Zarathustra, the lord and ruler of the Vara made by Yima in that land.” There were several Zarathustra or Zertusts, the Dabistan alone enumerating thirteen; but these were all the reincarnations of the first one. The last Zoroaster was the founder of the Fire temple of Azareksh and the writer of the works on the primeval sacred Magian religion destroyed by Alexander.

7. In India called “The Day of Brahma.”

8. See Volcker, “Mythological Geography,” pp. 145 to 170.

9. It is to be remarked, however, that Mr. Wallace does not accept Mr. Sclater’s idea, and even opposes it. Mr. Sclater supposes a land or continent formerly uniting Africa, Madagascar, and India (but not Australia and India); and Mr. A. R. Wallace shows, in his “Geographical Distribution of Animals” and “Island Life,” that the hypothesis of such a land is quite uncalled for on the alleged zoological grounds. But he admits that a much closer proximity of India and Australia did certainly exist, and at a time so very remote that it was “certainly pre-tertiary,” and he adds in a private letter that “no name has been given to this supposed land.” Yet the land did exist, and was of course pre-tertiary, for “Lemuria” (accepting this name for the third Continent) had perished before Atlantis had fully developed; and the latter sunk and its chief portions had disappeared before the end of the Miocene period.

10. One more “coincidence” —

“Now it is proved that in geologically recent times, this region of North Africa was in fact a peninsula of Spain, and that its union with Africa (proper) was effected on the North by the rupture of Gibraltar, and on the South by an upheaval to which the Sahara owes its existence. The shores of this former sea of Sahara are still marked by the shells of the same Gastropoda that live on the shores of the Mediterranean.” (Prof. Oscar Schmidt, “Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism,” p. 244.)

11. A. Winchell, Professor of Geology, “World-Life,” p. 369.

12. Mr. Charles Gould, late Geological surveyor of Tasmania, in “Mythical Monsters,” p. 84.

13. Sir Charles Lyell, who is credited with having “happily invented the terms Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene,” to mark the three divisions of the Tertiary age, ought really to have settled upon some approximate age for his “Mind-offspring.” Having left the duration of these periods, however, to the speculations of specialists, the greatest confusion and perplexity are the result of that happy thought. It seems like a hopeless task to quote one set of figures from one work, without the risk of finding it contradicted by the same Author in an earlier or a subsequent volume. Sir W. Thomson, one of the most eminent among the modern authorities, has changed, about half-a-dozen times, his opinion upon the age of the Sun and the date of the consolidation of the Earth’s crust. In Thomson and Tait’s “Natural Philosophy,” one finds only ten million years allowed, since the time when the temperature of the Earth permitted vegetable life to appear on it; (App. D et seq. also Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin. xxiii, Pt. 1, 157, 1862, where 847 is cancelled). Mr. Darwin gives Sir W. Thomson’s estimate as “a minimum of 98 and a maximum of 200 millions of years since the consolidation of the crust” (See Ch. Gould). In the same work (Nat. Phil.) 80 millions are given from the time of incipient incrustation to the present state of the world. And in his last lecture, as shown elsewhere, Sir W. Thomson declares (1887) that the Sun is not older than 15 millions of years! Meanwhile, basing his arguments as to the limits to the age of the Sun’s heat, on figures previously established by Sir W. Thomson, Mr. Croll allows 60 millions of years since the beginning of the Cambrian period. This is hopeful for the lovers of exact knowledge. Thus, whatever figures are given by Occult Science, they are sure to be corroborated by those of some one among the modern men of Science who are considered as authorities.

Go to Next Page