Dictionary of all Scriptures & Myths

Introduction

POPULAR religious systems and theories are notoriously unstable and changeful. They have altered greatly within the last fifty years. They are the sport of sentimentalists and the derision of rationalists, and they remain to this day destitute of logical coherence and unity. A majority of the most eminent philosophers and scientists disbelieve in religions which clash with that intelligence with which man is naturally endowed. They therefore repudiate them and endeavor to explain the origin and characteristic of religions by the methods solely of reason and research. Yet it must be admitted, the scientists have been no more successful than the religionists in solving the problem of the existence and influence of religions.

Religions arise from sacred Scriptures and Myths, and the requisite knowledge of these mysterious utterances has been sought with great assiduity by learned investigators for more than a century past, without any indisputable and satisfactory result having been arrived at. How is it, we may ask, there is so much disputation about the origin and value of concepts which, from the remotest times to the present, have influenced very greatly the minds and actions of men? Surely we must conclude that nothing short of fundamental errors of investigation can account for the grave differences of opinion among thinkers on the subject of religions, scriptures and myths.

In regard to the origin of myths, I venture to say that the prevalent uncertainties and absurdities of the generally accepted Mythical theory are enough to arouse some suspicion that the theory is not well grounded. Let us then examine its essentials. In the first place it is assumed, without any evidence, that there is in man a special faculty of the human mind for the invention of myths, and that this "innate faculty of myth is indigenous and common to all men " (T. VIGNOLI, Myth and Science, p. 3). This assertion, be it observed, is made in face of the fact that no person, living or dead, is known to have evidenced this faculty by producing a myth. Vignoli himself confesses, "it appears to me that the ultimate source whence myths really proceed has not been reached" (p. 13). The source of myth, then, being unknown, the Mythical theory is not founded on fact, but is purely speculative and unscientific.

I have been unable to find in the works of Sir J. G. Frazer, Herbert Spencer, E. B. Tylor, A. Lang, J. M. Robertson, Sir G. Cox, and other mythologists, any but speculative and imagined premises for a general theory of myth. The writers all tacitly assume that there existed a different human nature and motives for action in people of the past to what we observe in the human nature of to-day. Yet to prove this contention, these exponents of mythical lore are unable to indicate a single person, savage or civilized, who has invented and promulgated myths. This lack of evidential fact makes purely conjectural any surmise of a peculiar state of mind in a supposed myth-maker, and of his method of forming myths. Hence it is the simple truth that the whole mythical theory is devoid of foundation on the firm ground of ascertained and acknowledged fact. A theory that is not grounded on fact can have no pretensions to science.

Further than, this,-a deliberative process of supposed myth-making must obviously be quite inconsistent with all known motives of intelligent action. What motive could there be for the very difficult production of a thoughtful myth? People are not to be found who actually desire to express their thoughts in the tedious enigmas required by mythological theory. We know that men and women speak and write in order to be understood by others, and they never attempt to uselessly conceal their ideas in forms of expression which have a nonsensical appearance. The believers in myth-makers would have us imagine that to produce myths there were people in the past who were so eccentric and unnatural as to speak, write and act from motives unknown, and in ways quite contrary to human nature of the present day.

The mythologists suppose the myth-makers to have had a burning desire to say something weird and unintelligible about such commonplace subjects as the weather, the crops, the seasons, vegetation, sun, moon and stars, etc. They would not be so vulgar as to say straight out in plain language what they thought upon these subjects; so it is supposed they took immense pains to cunningly clothe their remarks in mysterious and grotesque phraseology, so that people should not understand their trivial observations.

For example, Mr. J. M. Robertson writes of the passages in MATTHEW, ch. xxi, and ZECHARIAH, ch. ix, about a king riding to Jerusalem on two asses

“The just critical inference is that both passages had regard to the zodiacal figure of the Two Asses for the sign Cancer, from which we have the myth of Bacchus riding on two asses. Further, it is probable that the similar passage in the Song of Jacob has also a zodiacal basis." - The Jesus Problem, p. 45.

That is to say in each of these two or three cases, the myth-maker or myth- adaptor, busy over his difficult work of concealing his thoughts in cryptic language, suddenly wanted, in his story, to mention the fact that the sun passes in summer through a certain part of the sky, so he chose to express this idea by relating the incident of a king (as the sun) riding in state to a city, seated grotesquely on two asses (as fixed stars); and he seemingly trusted that his readers would not detect his meaning for about two thousand years!

Mythologists have at the outset of their investigations taken for granted that myths must have originated through laborious rational processes in the working of ignorant minds observant of natural occurrences. They have supposed that the myth-makers have been searching for the causes of phenomena, imagining them to be personal. We are told by Vignoli that “man personifies all phenomena, first vaguely projecting himself into them." No evidence worth naming is given for this supposed primitive working of the human intellect. Mythologists are expected to hold with Mr. Robertson that—

"All primitive beliefs and usages, however strange and absurd, are to be understood as primarily products of judgment, representing theories of causation, or guesses at the order of things." - Pagan Christs, p. 3.

The apparently absurd stories of Gods and Goddesses, and the strange usages in popular religions do not strike one as being primarily products of judgment, but rather as denoting ideas presented to unreasoning minds for acceptance, -credulous minds such as we observe among all religious and superstitious people. The mythologist assumes that myths arise from the exercise of reason in the minds of certain persons of a bygone age, which results in the invention of curious statements and stories: in short, that myths are intelligent productions of the self-conscious brain-mind of man. Now, as a matter of fact, there is no necessity whatever to assume that myths arise in this ordinary prosaic, thoughtful, imaginative way. Myths are extraordinary historical survivals, and it is surely reasonable to expect that they have originated in a manner also extraordinary.

In this relation our learned mythologists seem never to have given attention to the now well-known phenomena of trance-speaking and automatic writing, in which the speakers and writers present statements in the framing of which their conscious minds have had no part. Miss Evelyn Underhill writes:-

"St. Catherine of Siena, we are told, dictated her great Dialogue to her secretaries whilst in the state of ecstasy; which probably means a condition of consciousness resembling the 'trance' of mediums, in which the deeper mind governs the tongue.” - Mysticism, p. 352.

"Madame Guyon states in her autobiography that she would experience a sudden and irresistible inclination to take up her pen; though feeling wholly incapable of literary composition, and not even knowing the subject on which she would be impelled to write. If she resisted the impulse it was at the cost of the most intense discomfort. She would then begin to write with extraordinary swiftness; words, elaborate arguments and appropriate quotations coming to her without reflection, and so quickly that one of her longest books was written in one and a half days. 'In writing I saw that I was writing of things which I had never seen and during the time of this manifestation, I was given light to perceive that I had in me treasures of knowledge and understanding which I did not know that I possessed.'" - Ibid. p. 78.

Trance-speaking is a rare occurrence; so is the formation of myth; but while myth-making is totally unknown and incredible, trance-speaking has been carefully investigated in recent years, and found to show peculiarities which seem to make it a fitting external source of myth. What reason, then, is there for choosing the incredible myth-maker as the utterer of myth, rather than the credible trance-speaker? No argument against this latter choice can be based on the fact that the subjective mind in trance has not for many centuries brought forth a myth; for neither has the inventive mind produced a myth. The reason why myths are exclusively ancient must obviously reside in hidden causes about which we can only at present speculate.

The weakness and incompetence of the mythical theory to explain the subject it deals with is also very evident when we come to consider the question of the why and the wherefore of the popular  acceptance and veneration of myths. The mythologists suppose that myths are calmly invented by students of nature and tradition through a process of cold reasoning and judgment, ill-calculated to appeal to their own feelings or the feelings of others. How, then, could the myths, when publicly announced, appeal to the emotions of the populace so as to command reverence, and be memorised? Such a question as this does not apparently occur to any mythologist. In modern times the expounding of a seeming myth by its inventor would, I think, only arouse feelings of amusement and derision, and no one would have any impulse to believe in the absurd concoction. The newness of a legend would in these times also tell strongly against its acceptance. When missionaries of a religion try to gain proselytes, they never seek credence for new stories, but always for old and venerable narrations not supposed to be the inventions of human beings, and which they can expound in an impersonal and impressive manner.

Contrast any possible method of foisting invented myths upon a group of persons, with the very different occasion of an acknowledged trance-utterance, and the natural effect the strange speech would have upon ignorant or uncivilised auditors. The trance-speaker would be recognised as not speaking from himself, but from the inspiration of an invisible being who had taken temporary possession of him. This solemn and mysterious condition of things would certainly arouse in simple minds deep emotions of wonder, awe, and reverence, and ensure strong belief both in the powerful unseen intelligence and in the trance-spoken message, however absurdly it might be worded. In afterwards promulgating the utterance far and wide, its origin would be described or taken for granted, so that religious emotions would always be attached to it and give it persistency in believing minds.

Travellers have described scenes where persons entranced have declaimed to awe-stricken hearers who presumably would never forget what they had seen and heard. It seems to be certain that sacred myths in their inception must have had strong emotions behind them to give them the requisite power of impression and endurance in the minds of priests and devotees.

Sir George Grey, the principal collector of the myths of New Zealand, brings before us a remarkable figure :-

"For the first time, I believe, a European reader will find it in his power to place himself in the position of one who listens to a heathen and savage high priest, explaining to him, in his own words and in his own energetic manner, the traditions in which he earnestly believes, and unfolding the religious opinions upon which the faith and hopes of his race rest." - Polynesian Mythology, Preface.

Examining the contents of Sir G. Grey's book, I think it would be difficult for anyone to imagine that the grotesque myths this priest unfolded were the products of cold and cunning invention, rather than of impassioned entranced speech in some former age.

It is impossible to draw a line between sacred Myths and sacred Scriptures; they flow into each other, and they obviously have the same kind of origin. Yet scant notice is taken of the mythical theory by most religionists, just as if it had nothing to do with their Scriptures. Nevertheless, the theory they espouse is practically indistinguishable from the mythical theory, but with the added absurdity of a self-contradictory exposition of it. They affirm the Divine inspiration of their Scriptures, and at the same moment deny the necessary condition of inspiration, which is that the inspired writer is unaware of the theme on which he is writing, and therefore irresponsible for either the words or the meaning. They apparently assume that Scriptures are produced by an impossible co-ordination of two mental determinants, human and divine, with a nondescript result which could be attributed neither to man nor God.

This abortive theory has been invented to serve what is called the "higher criticism," which destroys entirely the old belief in verbal inspiration; thus reducing the Scriptures to the level of all other writings, and treating them as rubbish, more or less, according to the fancies of the impious critics. Therefore, instead of discarding a theory which is obviously false, as it does not fit the facts, these thinkers cling to it, and so find themselves confronted with difficulties innumerable, created by their own theory out of the neglected facts, and which to their great distress they find it impossible to get rid of. This indicates the present position of Biblical exegesis among learned scholars who always refer to scripture writers as knowing what they wrote about.

On the question of symbolism, it is quite evident, from the structural resemblances we see in sacred Myths and Scriptures collected from all parts of the world, that the symbolism is one and universal, and therefore not of human origin. This unity, implying one Source for all sacred utterances, and the logical inference that the same symbols have the same meanings everywhere, has to be realised. When this highly important fact of symbolic unity is grasped, it completely sweeps away the possibility of the past existence of myth and scripture-making persons. No persons, however learned, could be credited with having knowledge of this obscure universal symbology so as to be able to compose true Myths or Scriptures.

Scriptures are merely extensions of myths; as the same symbology rules all sacred declarations. We are compelled by the facts before us to believe that all genuine Myths and Scriptures were produced in some way by persons in peculiar but not unnatural states of mind usually called inspired. In these states the will and brain-mind exercise no control over the means of speech or writing. The ancient Scriptures claim to be Divinely inspired, and it is highly reasonable to suppose that they were written down automatically. If they are examined freely and without prejudice, they show plainly, by the very large amount of absurdity and nonsense they contain, that they could not have been thoughtfully composed by either intelligent or unintelligent men. The allegation that the Sacred Books have proceeded from the intelligence of the writers of the books is a mere groundless assumption, for there is no evidence in history, or among living people, of any person composing and writing a sacred book.

Max Müller was probably, in his day, the greatest of all investigators of the world-scriptures. He died disappointed of his life-work, as the following statements indicate :-

"I confess it has been for many years a problem to me, how the Sacred Books of the East should, by the side of so much that is fresh, natural, simple, beautiful and true, contain so much that is not only unmeaning, artificial and silly, but even hideous and repellent. This is a fact and must be accounted for in some way or other."

"There will always remain in the Upanishads a vast amount of what we can only call meaningless jargon, and for the presence of which in these ancient mines of thought, I, for my part, feel quite unable to account." - S.B.E., Vol. I. xii, Vol. XV. xx.

The nature of the Scriptures is not understood while they are regarded as of human origin and having no undermeanings. As a matter of fact, the Sacred writings bear no trace of human origin beyond the superficial presence of common ideas and language. Their varying contents, broadly considered, seldom relate to mundane experience, and usually purport to be revelation of unseen potencies. We find described an unnatural condition of things in the past, present, and for the future. Regarded as sincere expressions of thought, the sacred utterances are quite incongruous with all that is proved to be produced by the human mind.

In viewing our natural environment, we note the complete absence of beneficent and maleficent superhuman powers interfering with natural laws and human arrangements; but when we turn to the sacred writings we are confronted with such powers described as apparently active in the outer world. Gods, angels and devils move freely in a fantastic world unknown to our experience. Assuming that Scriptures are written truthfully, we can, from this peculiarity concerning them, judge with certainty that the sacred narrations are not historical but imaginative, and were not meant to be taken objectively in any sense. The world of Inspiration is not the physical world, or world of history, but is really the inner world of spirit, mind, emotion, and desire, in which the human ego always lives, moves, and has his being. In this inner world the Ideals of truth and goodness (the Gods) and their opposites (devils) are active, and it is here that the tragedy of each life is enacted. This conception of the nature of the Scriptures brings order out of the confusion of thought in which the modern mind involves them.

If now it be conceded that the Sacred Books are not of human origin, then it follows that they do not come under the ordinary methods of analysis, criticism and judgment applicable to human productions. Neither the historical nor the verbal criticism of scholars is of the least use in their exegesis. Not being literary compositions, they cannot properly be dealt with as such, but must be treated differently to all other books. They must be considered in view of what they really are, if rational use is to be made of them.

In popular religions, we find an inconsistent mixture of two different modes of scriptural interpretation, one spiritual and the other material (historical), with the inevitable result of interminable disputations over opinions, and the formulation of incoherent pronouncements which are the laughing-stock of sceptics. Popular religions partially teach truth; and every religion is vindicated by the truths it has derived from the Spirit, while every religion is condemned by the superstitions it has imposed upon belief through having mistaken the dead letter of the Word for the living idea signified by it.

The Scriptures, as proceeding from the Omniscient Wisdom, are therefore in their undermeanings quite consistent treatises, never contradicting each other, and teaching universally the great truths of the nature of man, of the soul-process, and of the cosmos. The cryptic language of the sacred books is not at all of arbitrary formation, but accords with correspondences in nature, higher and lower, and being quite simple in its general features, can be readily made out by all open-minded, intelligent students who set themselves to learn it. When the clue to the language is found, it can be deciphered just in the same way as the hieroglyphs of Egypt were made out. Each hieroglyph when revealed aided the revelation of associated hieroglyphs. In the Scriptures, to make decipherment easier, there are certain spiritual ideas which are partly expressed on the surface and so can greatly help interpretation. These ideas have been embodied in the different religions of the world and constitute the active spirit of the religions, and are the source of their idealistic power over the mental and emotional nature of mankind.

In regard to the scheme of the symbolism, it will be found that in the sacred writings the activities which apparently are of the outer world of sense stand really for the activities of the inner world of thought. The apparent sense-world of consciousness symbolises the real soul-world of humanity, in which we become aware of all the emotions, faculties and activities of the soul's experience of life.

If in the country on a fine day, we stand fronting a pool of water, we may observe a prospect which beautifully pictures the higher and the lower things of the soul and the cosmos, as expressed in the Sacred Language of all Myths and Scriptures.

These ideograms are universal symbols of the Five Planes of Existence, all in their proper order, that is, from the highest (most inward) to the lowest (most outward) states of existence. They are recognised in all the Sacred Books of the world, and this Dictionary cannot be understood without regard to them. Knowledge of the Five Planes and their symbols makes it easy to at once make out the meanings of many other associated symbols. In the Sun-realm is the Sun, a symbol of God-manifest, or the Higher Self who passes through the whole Cycle of Divine Life (zodiac) in a series of twelve stages (year). In the Sky-realm are the higher emotions (bright clouds), and the transmuting Fire of Wisdom (the lightning) which purifies the human soul, life after life. In the Air-realm are the mental faculties (people) and lower emotions (animals), also instincts (plants), and aspirations (birds). In the Water-realm are reflected inversely the motives and things of the higher planes, and these bring delusion and error into the soul. In the Earth-realm are the outer conditions of mental activity (work) and progress (walking).

There is nothing mysterious in the original choice of particular symbols to express psychic ideas. The Divine choice was evidently restricted to just the various ordinary ideas which were to be found in the  minds of the inspired writers; and the ideas selected were those which corresponded in some way to the psychic and spiritual ideas which the Divine Wisdom sought to express for the information of the human race. It was obviously impossible for the Holy Spirit in any other way to impart to a but slightly civilised humanity some of the deep truths of being which minds are slow to receive and comprehend.

Symbols taken from the ideas of everyday life, such as Seeds, Fields, Ploughing, Sowing, Cultivation, Fruits, Garden, Corn, Bread, etc., correspond in their higher meanings quite reasonably with their lower significations, and are easily understood; and they fit in perfectly with the ideograms of the Five Planes. Investigation will show that the Sacred Language is perfectly consistent in itself, and that it demonstrates the perfect consistency of each and all of the inspired Scriptures of the world. Uninspired interpolations can be readily detected by the absence of response to the sacred symbolism; and, of course, all human compositions fail entirely to show the presence of the symbolism.

For the esoteric ideas there are many symbols in the Scriptures. This multiplicity is inevitable, in order to suit the discursive and figurative character of the narrations which contain the undermeanings. A few symbols have double meanings, i.e. higher and lower significations. The only cases I know are Fire, Water, Earth, Ocean, Serpent, Dragon, Darkness, Night, Riches, Garments; also in some degree Clouds, Black, Children, Marriage, Māyā, Tongue, South, North, Demon, Stars and Sword. The right meanings in particular cases of these symbols are easily found by consideration of the contexts. The reason for these double meanings follows from the universal fact of the duality of manifestation.

The deific names for the manifest God, or Higher Self, on the highest plane are very numerous. The deific names for the Wisdom principle on the spiritual plane are rather less numerous. The deific names for the higher-mind principle appear to be no more than one in any religious system. The only ones I know are Thoth, Hermes, Mercury, Nebo, Thor, Hanuman, Shinatsu, and Tumatauenga. The Higher Self is sometimes symbolised by certain animal names; as Ram, Bull, Lion, (white) Elephant, (white) Goat, and Fish. These represent centres of Divine activity in the stages of manifestation pictured in the zodiac. Time, Space, Justice, Evolution, Power have sometimes deific names; while Desire, Relativity, Limitation, Illusion, Ignorance have demonic ones. Gender when present in symbols is often a great aid to the elucidation of undermeanings; for the masculine gender relates to Spirit, Mind, Desire, or Time; while the feminine relates to Matter, Intuition, Emotion, or Space. Also it must be borne in mind that the Spiritual and Earth planes are feminine, and the three other planes masculine.

The land of the country of origin of a Scripture becomes in that Scripture a symbol of the mental plane of the soul, the arena on which the various soul. qualities (people) develop and progress. The mental plane is the plane of conflict for the fighting and wars so much dealt with in the sacred books. The principal river of a country then symbolises the ray of the Divine Life which comes from above and brings life and truth to the mind and soul (e.g. Nile, Ganges, Jordan). The higher land stands for the higher mind, and the more remote and inaccessible districts for the higher planes of the soul. Foreigners or Gentiles represent little-developed qualities and adverse experiences invading the soul at times.

National Scriptures vary from each other very much in character both outwardly and inwardly. In some the teaching is more advanced and intellectual, as in Greece and India; in others more emotional and elementary, as in Palestine and Scandinavia; in others more formal, as in Egypt and China; and so on, according to the needs of the souls in the nationalities. The use of particular symbols also varies naturally according to the customs, industrial conditions, foods, animals and climates in the different countries. For example, the Cow symbol, so common in the Scriptures of Egypt and India, is almost absent in the Bible of Palestine.

Some knowledge of the Divine Scheme of Existence, in combination with symbol meanings, is of great use in the elucidation of Scripture undermeanings. This knowledge has been in some degree known to the mystics of several religions, and is further revealed in the undermeanings.

I venture to say that only by accepting the Sacred Language as a well-ascertained fact, and by learning of truths by means of it, can the present controversies over religions and their Scriptures be ended, and a consistent and deep Philosophy of Religion be reached.