The Secret Doctrine Volume 3.pdf

Every scholar must be aware that there are two distinct styles - two schools, so to speak -
plainly traceable in the Hebrew Scriptures: the Elohistic and the Jehovistic. The portions
belonging to these respectively are so blended together, so completely mixed up by later
hands, that often all external characteristics are lost. Yet it is also known that the two schools
were antagonistic; that the one taught esoteric, the other exoteric, or theological doctrines;
that the one, the Elohists, were Seers (Roch), whereas the other, the Jehovists, were
prophets (Nabhi) [ This alone shows how the Books of Moses were tampered with. In
Samuel (ix.9), it is said: “He that is now a prophet [Nabhi] was beforetime called a Seer
[Roch].” Now since before Samuel, the word “Roch” is met nowhere in the Pentateuch, but
its place is always taken by that of “Nabhi,” this proves clearly that the Mosaic text has been
replaced by that of the later Levites. (See for fuller details Jewish Antiquities, by the Rev. D.
Jennings. D.D.) ] and that the latter - who later became Rabbis - were generally only
nominally prophets by virtue of their official position, as the Pope is called the infallible and
inspired vicegerent of God. That, again, the Elohists meant by “Elohim” “forces,” identifying
their Deity, as in the Secret Doctrine, with Nature; while the Jehovists made of Jehovah a
personal God externally, and used the term simply as a phallic symbol - a number of them
secretly disbelieving even in metaphysical, abstract Nature, and synthesizing all on the
terrestrial scale. Finally, the Elohists made of man the divine incarnate image of the Elohim,
emanated first in all Creation; and the Jehovists show him as the last, the crowning glory of
the animal creation, instead of his being the head of all the sensible beings on earth. ( This is
reversed by some Kabalists, but the reversion is due to the designedly-produced confusion in
the texts, especially in the first four chapters of Genesis.)
Take the Zohar and find in it the description relating to Ain-Suph, the Western or Semitic
Parabrahman. What passages have come so nearly up to the Vedantic ideal as the following:
The creation [the evolved Universe] is the garment of that which has no name,
the garment woven from the Deity’s own substance. [ Zohar. i.2a.]
The Concealed of all the Concealed- (Page 179) Between that which is Ain or
“nothing,” and the Heavenly Man, there is an Impersonal First Cause, however, of which it is
said:
Before It gave any shape to this world, before It produced any form, It was
alone, without form or similitude to anything else. Who, can comprehend It,
how It was before the creation, since It was formless Hence it is forbidden to
represent It by any form, similitude, or even by Its sacred name, by a single
letter or a single point. [ Zohar, 42b.]
The sentence that follows, however, is an evident later interpolation; for it draws attention to
a complete contradiction:
And to this the words (Deut. iv. 15), refer - “Ye saw no manner of similitude on
the day the Lord spake unto you.”
But this reference to Chapter iv. of Deuteronomy, when in Chapter v, God is mentioned as
speaking “face to face” with the people, is very clumsy.
Not one of the names given to Jehovah in the Bible has any reference whatever to either Ain-
Suph or the Impersonal First-Cause (which is the Logos) of the Kabalah; but they all refer to
the Emanations.
142