Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine. Volume I. September 1887-February 1888.Various
Religion
Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine. Volume I. September 1887-February 1888.
Various
Theosophy -- Periodicals
As I have elsewhere shown, blood was sworn by as the type of that
which was true, the primary one of the typical Two Truths of Egypt.
It was so in all the mysteries, and is so to-day, including the
mysteries of Masonry. I have suggested the derivation of the masonic
name from the Egyptian _Sen_ = son, for blood and brotherhood. The
working Mason in Egyptian is the _makh_ (_makht_) by name. _Makh_
means to work, inlay by rule and measure. We see that _makh_
modifies into _mâ_ for measure, and for that which is just and true.
_Mâ-sen_ = Mason, would denote the true brotherhood; and as _sen_ is
also blood, the true brotherhood as the blood-brotherhood would be
the masons in the mystical or occult sense. Red is the colour of
_Mâ_ or Truth personified, and _sen_ is blood. Blood is sworn by
because it is the colour of truth, or the true colour. Now in old
English the word _seng_ means both “blood” and “true.” Here, then,
we find the origin of the oath, which constitutes the supreme
expression in the vocabulary of our English roughs, when they use
the oath of the blood-covenant, and swear by the word “bloody!” When
they wax emphatic, everything they say becomes “bloody true.” This
is the exact equivalent of “seng it is” for “it is true.” According
to the primitive mysteries, this mode of swearing, or establishing
the covenant, was sacred whilst kept piously secret, and it becomes
impious when made public or profane. Such mysteries were very simply
natural at first, and it was this primitive simplicity and nearness
to nature which demanded the veil to protect them from the gaze of
the later consciousness. Time was when the English felon would carry
a red handkerchief with him to the scaffold, and hold it in his hand
as a signal that he had betrayed no secrets, but died “bloody true,”
or true blood.
These customs were symbolical, but there is a hint of the
blood-covenant beyond them—a hint received direct from Nature
herself—call it revelation if you please. In the first rude ethics
we find that the time for the sexes to come together was recognised
by the intimation of nature, made in her own sign-language at the
period of feminine pubescence. Nature gave the hint, and a covenant
was established. Henceforth, the child that could not enter that
covenant would be protected from brutal assault, and was allowed, or
rather compelled, to run about unclothed in token of her exemption.
It is here in the swearing-in and covenanting of the sexes at the
time of pubescence that we discover another real and most secret,
_i.e._, sacred root of the rite.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account