A Collection of Esoteric Writings of T. Subba Row/Correspondence–"The Virgin of the World"
Correspondence.
"THE VIRGIN OF THE WORLD."
TO THE EDITOR OF THE THEOSOPHIST.
Isis never represented the soul or sixth Principle (third) of the universe, but the eighth sphere; not properly a Principle, but an influence. Passages from the best authors are cited in my essay to prove this fact, and many more can be adduced. If, as is certain, Isis was identified with the Moon, and wore as an ensign the double horns of Selene, it is placed beyond doubt that she symbolised the Occult Power of Increase and Decrease, Good and Evil, and cannot possibly, therefore, be identified with the Soul whom she rejoices or afflicts according to an inflexible law. I cannot in the least understand your reviewer's reference to the Egyptian pantheon in connection with Dionysos-Zagreus. No pretence is made in my essay or elsewhere in the work, that Dionysos occupied such a place, although, of course, he had his correspondence therein. But the whole of my exposition follows the Greek mysteries, and deals with their presentations. That Dionysos-Zagreus personified in these mysteries the seventh Principle (Hermetically, the Fourth) in the universe,—that is—the Divine and vitalizing Spirit, is no surmise or assumption of mine, but an undoubted fact, placed beyond controversy by the authorities already mentioned. This Dionysos-Zagreus, (Dionusos Chthonios) the Mystic Dionysos, must not be confounded with the later god, identical with Bacchus, the son of Semele. I will only add that there is no such inconsistency in my essay as your reviewer charges on me. Dionysos represents the Spirit or Seventh Principle (Fourth) whether macrocosmically or microcosmically, and, as such, has been identified with Osiris, the Egyptian presentation of the same Principle. And Persephone is alike, in both aspects, greater and lesser, the Soul. But the Greek Mysteries dealt ostensibly with the macrocosmic presentation of the divine drama, and with its individual meaning by implication only. Hence Persephone is generally taken to signify the Soul in her larger acceptation, as "Kore Kosmou," and hence also, her son Dionysos, represents rather the son of God in the World than the son of God in Man.
And, in this connexion, in order further to elucidate the function and position of Isis in the macrocosm as it is expounded by Hermetists and neo-Platonists, I may add that her counter-partal analogy in the microcosm, or individual, is found in the Genius:—the gurdain angel of Christian theosophy. This Genus is good or bad, helpful or hindering, bright or dark, favorable or hostile, according to the state of grace (Karma) which the Soul has acquired. The Genius sheds upon the Soul the light derived from her own celestial Sun. (see pp. 88 and 89 of the "Perfect Way.")
In the Discourse accompanying the allegory of the "Virgin of the World," I understand Isis to represent the Illuminatrix or Revealer; Osiris, the Saviour or Redeeming Principle; and Horos, the Initiate,— offspring of a good "Karma" or state of Grace, and Divine Influx, by which parentage is exactly described the generation of every true "Jesus."
I must content myself with a simple expression of dissent from your reviewer's appreciation of the relation existing between the mysteries of Egyptian and of Grecian origin. No doubt I feel somewhat strongly on this point, because my own instruction and illumination in mystic doctrine have been obtained chiefly through the splendid arcana which I cannot, without regret, find characterised by your reviewer in a sentence evidently intended to disparge them, as "mythological fables."
| Christmas, 1885. | Anna Kingsford, M. D., F. T. S. |
Sir,— In thanking you for the notice of this book in the November Theosophist, I wish to correct a misapprehension caused by your reviewer's statement that the books now being published do not appear to be the real Hermetic books. The misapprehension in question consists in the impression that this statement is made in contradiction of the position taken up by me. Whereas, the fact is it correctly dessribes that position the only conclusion to which I have committed myself in the point being "that the doctrine contained in the Hermetic books is in part, at least, a survival from the times of ancient Egypt, and therein really Hermetic." I have not said a word to imply that I considered them the work of Trismegistus himself, or that the term Hermetic meant other than a certain school or system of doctrine, originating, so far as the Western World is concerned, in Egypt, and bearing tho name of Hermes Trismegistus, a name which has long been, for the Western World, a synonym for the intellectual principle.
Your reviewer's expression "misconception generally prevalent in the minds of the Western Hermetists" seems to me unfortunate as constituting an affirmation that the "Western Hermetists" are not rightly instructed concerning their own doctrine. Whereas all that your reviewer can possibly be in a position to affirm is that there is a divergency of view between his system and that of the West. That there may be and probably is such a divergency we "Western Hermetists" are quite ready to admit. But we are not ready to admit that the error, if any, lies with us. Rather do we hold, and believe, that the revival of occult knowledge now in progress will some day demonstrate, that the Western system represents ranges of preception, which the Eastern—at least as expounded in the pages of the Theosophist—has yet to attain.
P. S.—Allow me to state, in justice to my fellow-editor and myself, that the responsibility for the defective title-page and table of contents does not rest with as, these not having been submitted to us prior to publication.
Sir,—Kindly permit me to say a few words with reference to the two letters seat by Dr. Kingsford and Mr. Maitland in connection with my review of the "Virgin of the World."
If my critics had borne in mind that the subject-matter of my review was the "Virgin of the World" and not their introductory essays or Hellenic mysteries, they would no doubt have refrained from making all the irrelevant statements which their letters contain. There were but two specific references to these introductory essays in my article. One of my objections remains altogether unanswered, and the explanation given with reference to the other throws no additional light on the real question at issue as the following remarks will show.
"The Virgin of the World" was published though not as a genuine work of Hermes himself, yet as a treatise on Egyptian mysteries. In reviewing it, therefore, I found it necessary to examine it by the light of the Hermetic science and not by that of Grecian philosophy. With reference to the title of the Hermetic Fragment under consideration, I made the following statement in my article—" ......it is necessary to point out that Persephone is not the Cosmic Virgin and cannot be represented as such from the stand-point of Hermetic philosophy." Dr. Kingsford objects to this statement on the authority of various writers on Grecian philosophy. If Grecian writers have bestowed this title on Persephone, it is no proof whatever that Egyptian writers did the same thing. Persephone might be the Kore Kosmou of the Hellenic mysteries, but she was not the cosmic Virgin of the Egyptians. It will even be difficult to find the corresponding goddess of the Egyptian Pantheon. It cannot even be contended that the "Virgin of the World" not being a genuine Egyptian book, but a work written by some Grecian author, to some extent according to Egyptian models, the title in question might have been used according to the conception of Grecian writers in general. For, under such a supposition, there would be no connection whatever between the contents of the book and the title is chosen for it. There is no special reference whatsoever to Persephone or any corresponding goddess in the treatise as we find it at present. The only female deity who figures prominently in it is Isis. Under these circumstances it would have been extremely absurd on my part if I had put on the title in question the construction now contended for by my critic and tried to force into the teachings of Isis by means of strained interpretations and far-fetched analogies any ideas relating to the position of Persephoneia in Grecian mysteries. I beg to state further that the description, when judged by itself and not in connection with the usage of any particular class of writers, is more appropriate to the Egyptian Isis than to the Grecian Persephone.
It is my humble opinion that my critic has misconceived the position of the Egyptian Isis. What is really meant by saying that Isis represented "the Eighth sphere" it is not easy to understand. She further says that Isis is not a principle but an influence. In spite of my critic's assurance to the contrary, I um unable to find any authority for these assertions in her introductory essay. Though the word principle is now rejected as inapplicable, yet I find in p. 27 of the said essay that Isis is "a principle" represented by the Kabbalists under the figure of Malcuth or the Moon. The reason assigned for disproving my statement that Isis represented the 6th principle of the Cosmos is stated as follows:—"If, as is certain, Isis was identified with the moon, and wore as an ensign the double horns of Selene, it is placed beyond doubt that she symbolized the occult power of Increase and Decrease, Good and Evil, and cannot possibly therefore be identified with the soul whom she rejoices and afflicts according to an inflexible Law." To begin with, what proof is there that Isis was identified with the moon by Egyptian writers? There is no use in saying that Grecian writers identified her with Diana or Artemis. When the question whether Grecian writers rightly or wrongly interpreted the Hermetic doctrines of ancient Egypt is under discussion, it is improper solely to rely on their statements. The sign of the Crescent is no proof that Isis represents the moon. This symbol, which has a profound significance to every true occultist, is associated with a very large number of male and female deities in the Hindu religious philosophy; but not one of them is on that account ever confounded with the moon. Isis has not got all the attributes of Diana or Artemis. She was never represented as a huntress, for instance with a bow and arrows in her hands. Another Egyptian goddess—the Divine Neith—had these attributes. But Neith was clearly a Solar Deity in the Egyptian doctrine. It would be extremely unsafe for a student of comparative mythology to infer the identity of two deities belonging to the mystical conceptions of two very different nationalities from the mere fact that they have some similar attributes. Even admitting that the moon was a symbol of Isis, how does it follow from it that Isis was considered by the Egyptian as "the occult power of increase and decrease, good and evil?", The description itself conveys no definite idea, and there is no evidence to show that the Egyptians attached any such significance to the moon in their writings. Even supposing that the chain of inference is so far sound and that this influence called Isis rejoices and afflicts the soul, how is it shown thereby that Isis is not the Cosmic soul or the 6th principle of the Universe? Does Isis or the law of Karma afflict and rejoice the 6th principle or the spiritual intelligence of the Cosoms. If it does, it requiries no doubt a "range of perception" which the Eastern system "has yet to attain" to comprehend the meaning of this statement. If it does not, the whole arguement is simply worthless. The law of Karma and its influence is as much a manifestation of the energies of the Cosmic 6th principle of every other all in the Universe; and the rejoicings and sufferings of the soul encased in matter do not disprove the real genuine claims of Isis to be rgarded as the spiritual soul of the Cosmos.
I did not say and did not mean to insinuate in my articles that Dr. Kingsford made any incorrect statements as regards Dionysos Zagreus as is now alleged. I simply pointed out in my article that Dionysos as contrasted with Osiris had no place in the Egyptian Pantheon to preclude the possibility of any misconception that might otherwise arise regarding the real position of Osiris from certain passages in the introductory essay: and I must further state now that if Osiris is to be left out of account Dionysos has no correspondence in the Egyptian Pantheon.
The inconsistency pointed out in my article is in no way removed by the explanation now given. I beg to call the readers's attention to the following passages in the introductory essay in this connection.
1. " . . . The incarnation, martyrdom and resuscitation of Dionysos Zagreus."
2. "For, Osiris is the microcosmic sun, the counter-part in the human system of the macrocosmic Dionysos or Son of God. So that these authors who confound Isis with Demeter, equally and quite comprehensibly confound Osiris with Dionysos . . . "
"The Hermetic books admit three expressions of Deity; first, the supreme, abstract, and infinite God, eternally self-subsistent and unmanifest; secondly, the only Begotten, the manifestation of Deity in the universe; thirdly, God in man, the redeemer, or Osiris."
Comparing these various statements with each other we find Dionysos, described as the macrocosmic sun or the only Begotten Son of God manifested in the Universe, undergoing incarnation, martyrdom and resuscitation as if he were the incarnated spirit. It is now asserted that Dionysos represents the spirit or 7th principle, whether macrocosmically or microcosmically. If so, he is identical with Osiris as is virtually admitted. Why then was it stated in the introductory essay that some authors confounded Dionysos with Osiris and Isis with Demeter? If one and the same principle is alike the Logos manifested in the Cosmos and the Logos manifested in man, what foundation is there for the three expressions of Deity above described? If the Greek mysteries dealt ostensibly with the macrocosmic presentation of the Divine Drama, and with its individual meaning by implication only as is now asserted this statement is altogether at variance with the following statements in the introductory essay:—"The Greek mysteries dealt only with two subjects, the first being the Drama of the rape and restoration of Persephone; the second that of the incarnation, martyrdom and resuscitation of Dionysos Zagreus." It cannot, surely, be contended that these form the subject-matter of the macrocosmic presentation of the Divine Drama: and we are further informed that the Hellenic mysteries dealt only with these two subjects. If so, the presentation is pre-eminently if not entirely microcosmic and the macrocosmic position assigned to Dionysos and the difference pointed out between him and Osiris in the introductory essay by reason of such position, is out of place in the Grecian mysteries. Any number of difficulties may be pointed out in the position assumed by Dr. Kingsford, and the explanation now offered is likely to make matters worse.
As regards the guardian angel of Christian Theosophy, I find it necessary to state that this guardian angel is not the counterpart of Isis. If Isis is not a principle but a mere influence as stated by my critic, it is difficult to understand how this influence can discharge the duties assigned to, and be invested with, the attributes of a guardian angel in the Christian doctrine.
With reference to Dr. Kingford's letter I have only to state further that I did not use the expression cited for the purpose of disparaging the Grecian mystical doctrines. According to ordinary usage the expression in question was the only one which I could use to indicate that part of the Grecian literature which dealt with mystical and occult subjects. But my convictions are equally strong that there is a greater depth of occult significance in the allegorical fables of Egypt than in those of Greece, and that it will be extremely unjust to the Egyptian doctrine to interpret it in accordance with Hellenic notions.
Mr. Maitland's letter requires but very few words in reply. He makes no attempt to justify his assertion that the number of the Vedas or their sub-divisions is 42, but raises a discussion which is altogether irrelevant and unnecessary. I do not see how he can hold me responsible for any misapprehension that might have arisen from his own words. Mr. Maitland seems to think that I have no right whatever to speak of the misconceptions regarding the Hermetic doctrine that seem to exist in the minds of the so-called "Western Hermetists," because the said doctrine is "their own doctrine," and it must therefore be presumed that they know all about it. If, by Hermetic doctrine Mr. Maitland simply means the doctrine now professed by the so-called "Western Hermetists" of the present day, there is some reason for the astertion made. But the expression is generally applied to the occult philosophy and the mystical doctrines of the ancient Egyptians, and when I spoke of the misconceptions regarding the Hermetic doctrine in my review, I had this system of philosophy in view and not any other dootriae to which my critic might apply the expression.
But if Mr. Maitland goes to the length of saying that the Hermetic doctrine of the ancient Egyptians can be claimed by the Western Hermetists "as their doctrine," I am bound to reject such a claim as simply absurd. The real Hermetic doctrine is far more closely connected with the Eastern systems of occult science than with the Western. A considerable portion of it has long ago disappeared from the West entirely. The old Hermetic doctrine dealt with various systems of initiation. There were mysteries of Isis, of Osiris, of Hermes, of Neith, of Amen-ra and various others divided into distinct groups. A few of the doctrines only belonging to the mysteries of Isis and Osiris came to the West through Hebrew, Grecian and other sources considerably modified. The other parts of the true Hermetic doctrine were altogether lost to the West.
Under such circumstances it is highly desirable that "Western hermetists" should be a little more tolerant and discreet. Mr. Maitland's reference to the Theosophist is entirely out of place in the present discussion. I must confess that I have as yet seen very little of this Western wisdom which is somewhere stored up in Europe. Possibly it has very wide ranges of perception not yet attained by Eastern systems as Mr. Maitland is pleased to state.
But as these ranges of perception have very little to do with the Virgin of World or my review of the same, or with the introductory essays appended to it, it is unnecessary to enter into any controversy with Mr. Maitland on this subject.