Isis unveiled, Volume 1 (of 2), Science

[390] Ibid., p. 266.

[391] Draper: “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 121.

[392] Milton: “Paradise Lost.”

[393] See Ennemoser: “History of Magic,” vol. ii., and Schweigger: “Introduction to Mythology through Natural History.”

[394] “History of Magic,” vol. ii.

[395] B. Jowett, M. A.: “The Dialogues of Plato,” vol. ii., p. 508.

[396] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 240.

[397] “Plutarch,” translated by Langhorne.

[398] Some kabalistic scholars assert that the Greek original Pythagoric sentences of Sextus, which are now said to be lost, existed still, in a convent at Florence, at that time, and that Galileo was acquainted with these writings. They add, moreover, that a treatise on astronomy, a manuscript by Archytas, a direct disciple of Pythagoras, in which were noted all the most important doctrines of their school, was in the possession of Galileo. Had some Ruffinas got hold of it, he would no doubt have perverted it, as Presbyter Ruffinas has perverted the above-mentioned sentences of Sextus, replacing them with a fraudulent version, the authorship of which he sought to ascribe to a certain Bishop Sextus. See Taylor’s Introduction to Iamblichus’ “Life of Pythagoras,” p. xvii.

[399] Jowett: Introduction to the “Timæus,” vol. ii., p. 508.

[400] Ibid.

[401] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 14.

[402] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 311.

[403] “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” vol. v., p. 88.

[404] W. R. Grove: “Preface to the Correlation of Physical Forces.”

[405] “Timæus,” p. 22.

[406] Beginning with Godfrey Higgins and ending with Max Müller, every archæologist and philologist who has fairly and seriously studied the old religions, has perceived that taken literally they could only lead them on a false track. Dr. Lardner disfigured and misrepresented the old doctrines—whether unwittingly or otherwise—in the grossest manner. The pravritti, or the existence of nature when alive, in activity, and the nirvritti, or the rest, the state of non-living, is the Buddhistic esoteric doctrine. The “pure nothing,” or non-existence, if translated according to the esoteric sense, would mean the “pure spirit,” the NAMELESS or something our intellect is unable to grasp, hence nothing. But we will speak of it further.

[407] This is the exact opposite of the modern theory of evolution.

[408] Ficinus: See “Excerpta” and “Dissertation on Magic;” Taylor: “Plato,” vol. i., p. 63.

[409] “Modern American Spiritualism,” p. 119.

[410] The full and correct name of this learned Society is—“The American Association for the Advancement of Science.” It is, however, often called for brevity’s sake, “The American Scientific Association.”

[411] See Taylor’s translation of “Select Works of Plotinus,” p. 553, etc.

[412] Iamblichus: “De Vita Pythag.,” additional notes (Taylor).

[413] “The National Quarterly Review,” Dec., 1875.

[414] Ibid., p. 94.

[415] “Force and Matter,” p. 151.

[416] Burnouf: “Introduction,” p. 118.

[417] “The National Quarterly Review,” Dec., 1875, p. 96.

[418] “De Anima,” lib. i., cap. 3.

[419] De Maistre: “Soirées de St. Petersburg.”

[420] We need not go so far back as that to assure ourselves that many great men believed the same. Kepler, the eminent astronomer, fully credited the idea that the stars and all heavenly bodies, even our earth, are endowed with living and thinking souls.

[421] We are not aware that a copy of this ancient work is embraced in the catalogue of any European library; but it is one of the “Books of Hermes,” and it is referred to and quotations are made from it in the works of a number of ancient and mediæval philosophical authors. Among these authorities are Arnoldo di Villanova’s “Rosarium philosoph.;” Francesco Arnolphim’s “Lucensis opus de lapide,” Hermes Trismegistus’ “Tractatus de transmutatione metallorum,” “Tabula smaragdina,” and above all in the treatise of Raymond Lulli, “Ab angelis opus divinum de quinta essentia.”

[422] Quicksilver.

[423] “Hermes,” iv. 6. Spirit here denotes the Deity—Pneuma, ὁ θέος.

[424] “Magia Adamica,” p. 11.

[425]The ignorance of the ancients of the earth’s sphericity is assumed without warrant. What proof have we of the fact? It was only the literati who exhibited such an ignorance. Even so early as the time of Pythagoras, the Pagans taught it, Plutarch testifies to it, and Socrates died for it. Besides, as we have stated repeatedly, all knowledge was concentrated in the sanctuaries of the temples from whence it very rarely spread itself among the uninitiated. If the sages and priests of the remotest antiquity were not aware of this astronomical truth, how is it that they represented Kneph, the spirit of the first hour, with an egg placed on his lips, the egg signifying our globe, to which he imparts life by his breath. Moreover, if, owing to the difficulty of consulting the Chaldean “Book of Numbers,” our critics should demand the citation of other authorities, we can refer them to Diogenes Laertius, who credits Manetho with having taught that the earth was in the shape of a ball. Besides, the same author, quoting most probably from the “Compendium of Natural Philosophy,” gives the following statements of the Egyptian doctrine: “The beginning is matter Αρχῆν μὲν εῖναι ὕλην ἴλλεσθα, and from it the four elements separated.... The true form of God is unknown; but the world had a beginning and is therefore perishable.... The moon is eclipsed when it crosses the shadow of the earth” (Diogenes Laertius: “Proœin,” §§ 10, 11).

Besides, Pythagoras is credited with having taught that the earth was round, that it rotated, and was but a planet like any other of these celestial bodies. (See Fenelon’s “Lives of the Philosophers.”) In the latest of Plato’s translations (“The Dialogues of Plato,” by Professor Jowett), the author, in his introduction to “Timæus,” notwithstanding “an unfortunate doubt” which arises in consequence of the word ἵλλεσθαι capable of being translated either “circling” or “compacted,” feels inclined to credit Plato with having been familiar with the rotation of the earth. Plato’s doctrine is expressed in the following words: “The earth which is our nurse (compacted or) circling around the pole which is extended through the universe.” But if we are to believe Proclus and Simplicius, Aristotle understood this word in “Timæus” “to mean circling or revolving” (De Cœlo), and Mr. Jowett himself further admits that “Aristotle attributed to Plato the doctrine of the rotation of the earth.” (See vol. ii. of “Dial. of Plato.” Introduction to “Timæus,” pp. 501-2.) It would have been extraordinary, to say the least, that Plato, who was such an admirer of Pythagoras and who certainly must have had, as an initiate, access to the most secret doctrines of the great Samian, should be ignorant of such an elementary astronomical truth.

[426] “Wisdom of Solomon,” xi. 17.

[427] Eugenius Philalethes: “Magia Adamica.”

[428] Hargrave Jennings: “The Rosicrucians.”