Volume 2 Introduction: A preliminary summary of the two antagonistic primordial religions

Partager :

Table of contents

In my presentation of the series


as in here in my introduction to volume 2 I mentioned the fact that it will highlight and compare two religions, two versions with a divergent interpretation of the same historical events of the biblical Eden.

I now find it useful to provide you here in this introduction with a comparative summary of the respective doctrine of these two great original universal religions (even if this volume 2 will not follow a doctrinal but chronological order of presentation).

I think that knowing in advance the main doctrinal lines underlying each of those two systems of thought or primitive religions will allow you, as you will be confronted with an event, a teaching, to know correctly how to reposition it in the overall doctrinal framework of its respective religion.

Obviously, in this summary, I will proceed by affirmation.

It’s likely to provoke serious doubts, or a lot of questions, or raised eyebrows, or even wry smiles. But when it comes to the progressive demonstration that will follow, there’s little doubt that these perfectly understandable reactions will give way to astonishment, not to say amazement, after which the time will come for either denial or acceptance.
For it is the demonstration that follows that will be the most exciting.

But now let’s look at the fundamental differences between these two versions:

In fact, while both versions – the biblical and its contradictory, the mythological – believe, as we shall demonstrate, in a primordial human couple, Adam and Eve, and speak of their union, then of their rebellion against divine sovereignty out of a desire for independence, and of the mortifying consequences this had for them and for mankind, they diverge, on the other hand, essentially, on :
– their concept of God
– the reason for human creation and the purpose of human existence
– the final consequence of their fault and how to remedy it.


On the one hand, the biblical version presents God as a person in his own right, a transcendent god, a being who is not only unique and all-powerful, but also, and above all, the absolute and perfectly balanced concentration of all qualities, with Love at the top of the list.
On the other hand, the contradictory version will present God not as a person, but as an immanent, impersonal “being”, like an energy present everywhere in all places and being, unlike the biblical god who is “positive polarized”, “unpolarized”, i.e. all at once, positive, negative, neutral, as the association, conjunction or fusion of all opposites (good, evil, masculine, feminine, all and nothing, etc.). He/She is commonly referred to as “the great All”, in an attempt to convey both his/her impersonal character and the fact that He/She is the union of all possible opposites.

To this first major doctrinal opposition will be added a second, that of…


According to the biblical version, God created all angelic and terrestrial beings out of love, so that they too might enjoy the happiness of living and loving, and all of them, as intelligent creatures endowed with free will, whether angelic or terrestrial human, are destined to live eternally in the paradisiacal realm in which they were originally created: spiritual, “celestial” paradise for angels or terrestrial paradise for humans, thus remaining creatures considered to be sons or daughters to their celestial father. I should also point out that the nature of these creatures remains mortal, because if one of them were to make the conscious choice of evil, the consequence would then be its degeneration and death, a return to nothingness.

According to the contradictory version, the reason why all beings were created is the result of the splitting of the original Supreme Being, the great All, into its different opposites, so that all kinds of worlds, beings, natures and genus came into existence.
As for the finality of all creatures, it is not that they remain eternally in the domain in which they were initially created, but rather that they gradually end up becoming divinities in their own right, eventually merging with the Supreme Being, the great All. Being an extension by splitting of the great Whole, it is also taught that these creatures are all animated by an immortal soul enabling them, after their death in the physical world, to continue living in another form in order to eventually achieve this ultimate goal.
(The idea, then, is that the Great Whole created everything by splitting its being, and that the purpose of everything created is to return to its point of origin, to the Great Whole, with a first movement of flux, and a second movement of reflux, which we understand can be likened to a perpetual cycle of scission-fusion).

As we understand it, this very different conception of the supreme god and of the deepest reason why man and woman were created will not make them present in the same way, even if they will both report on it, the rebellion of the primordial couple in Eden, its disastrous consequences and the means of repairing them.


Indeed, in the biblical version, Adam and Eve’s rebellion is presented as an act of ungrateful folly and, since humans are mortal souls, as the very cause of their definitive death, their return to nothingness, to dust, and, by extension, the transmission to their children, born after their sin, of a genetic flaw condemning them to death from birth.
Hence the need to satisfy divine justice by bringing to earth an angelic creature, as announced in the first prophecy of Genesis, a being without blemish or defect, a messiah, a Christ to offer his life as a ransom, to take the place of the evil primordial father and thus save, redeem, all his descendants and reopen the gates of paradise lost, to destroy the devil and his works.

In the contradictory version, this same rebellion, while paradoxically also presented in the same way, i.e. as an act of selfish, ungrateful folly, will not have the same consequences for our first parents.
We could say that there will be three options for presenting the facts, three sub-versions to this contradictory version.
For, by virtue of the fact that the supreme God is considered to be evil, nothingness and good at the same time, there will logically be three different ways to end up merging with Him/She:


The first sub-version, very much in the minority, will be the path of evil.
Evil is one of the facets of the Supreme Being, the great All, so evil is simply a path like any other (i.e., like the quest for nothingness or goodness), ultimately merging with the Supreme Being. Taking the path of evil is presented as just another path to divinity, since the Supreme Being or Great All is fundamentally, also, among other things, evil by nature.
In this conception, Adam and Eve’s act of rebellion is presented as a model to follow, since it enabled them, by choosing the path of evil, to merge with the Greater Whole after their death. As we understand it, this is the doctrinal basis of the various Satanist movements that advocate evil as the path to enlightenment, and who throughout the ages (as at the time of the emergence of certain Christian gnosis movements), have presented God’s opponent, Satan Titan or the aforementioned Lucifer, as being an adjutant of God in the same capacity as Christ and, from their point of view, of the two moreover his best representative and the best guide to follow.


The second sub-version will be the path of nothingness.
It too will be in the minority, but less so than its predecessor.
The best way to reach supreme divinity is through the quest for nothingness, for self-annihilation.
As we understand it, this is the doctrinal basis of all nihilist currents aiming to eradicate from the human soul, by any means, any movement of the soul, positive or negative, in order to achieve “nirvana”, i.e. fusion with the great primordial All, since because he/she is All, he/she also Nothingness.


Finally, the third sub-version of the contradictory biblical version will be that the best way to achieve refusion with the Greater Whole is through the pursuit of good.

It’s essentially this version that archaic and ancient mythology developed (and even if it sometimes intersects with the first two sub-versions), it’s certainly the most clearly dominant version, or at any rate the one that was served to the people by the high priesthood.

That’s why we’ll be looking at this one in particular in our analysis of mythology, since it’s the one that essentially underpins it.
As for the first two, they will not be overlooked in this series, but will be the subject of a future, specific analysis in volume 8, dedicated to religions and cults.
Rather than calling this version the sub-version of the good of the contradictory version of the Bible or the original universal false religion, and because it is the backdrop to Mythology, I’ll simply call it the mythological version. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that Mythology already contained the seeds of the other two minor paths (the path of evil and the path of nothingness).

Since, in the mythological version, the attainment of divinity through the path of goodness is the underlying theme of all the analysis carried out in volumes 2 to 4, I believe it’s particularly important to explain this as synthetically as possible beforehand:

Returning to our first parents, we’ll be taught that, despite their terrible fault and its terrible consequences (once again, we’ll have ample proof that mythology recognizes these facts), they nevertheless managed to redeem themselves through their death.

How so?

The mythological version, in fact, if it admits that their rebellion condemned them to death, will present this killing as a voluntary self-sacrifice, assumed, accepted, so that their death sentence will be presented as having a self-sacrificial character.
In a word, Adam and Eve will be presented as having redeemed themselves by their death.
(We understand that, for Christians, this is just a denial of the necessity of Christ’s ransom if our first parents redeemed themselves).

Fundamentally, this belief that our first parents purified themselves by their acceptance of their death, and therefore by their own actions, will then end up being part of a wider framework, that of the quest for Sublimation.

Sublimation? What do I mean by that?

Believing in the power of Sublimation means asserting that a sinful being with faults or defects is capable of ridding himself of them, by his own means and efforts. Every being will be able to cleanse itself of its faults, to perfect itself in the strict sense of becoming perfect again by its own means, and thus eventually merge with the Great Whole.
We understand that this is the true Grail or philosopher’s stone of the alchemists, for the true quest underlying these symbols is that of self-acquired immortality, thanks to the sublimation of the being who undertakes the inner quest in order to leave behind his sinful human nature, rid himself of his dross, become of divine essence and thus re-merge with the great original All.

Compared to what our first parents accomplished, this notion of sublimation will be broadened in the sense that it will be taught that sublimation can be achieved not only through a self-sacrificial death like the one attributed to them, but also during three periods: during each being’s lifetime, through its death, and also after its death.

Let’s look briefly at these three possible modes:


It will be taught that every being is potentially capable of extricating himself from his imperfection during his lifetime, by means of self-justification through his works.
The believer will be taught, for example, that if he accumulates a greater number of good deeds than bad, he alone will prevail over himself.
He will also be taught that if he devotes himself to observing all kinds of codified rites, whether they flatter the senses and/or frustrate them, whether they are liberatory and/or expiatory in nature, with, for example, on the one hand rites of mystical hunting, mystical singing, mystical dancing, mystical sexuality, mystical intoxication… or, on the other hand, rites of asceticism, afflictions, mortifications, scarifications, incisions, self-flagellations… it will be possible for him to achieve self-purification, to extricate himself from materiality, to transcend his sinful human nature to reach a state of grace akin to the divine state.
In practice, only a very small number of people, known as the chosen ones, will be deemed to have achieved this result during their lifetime.


It’s this form of achieving sublimation that we’ll be focusing on in our examination of the lives of Adam and Eve as presented by Mythology, for it’s this means that it will attribute to them for having succeeded in sublimating, in self-buying.
The other two possibilities of sublimation of the being, during life and after death, will be two notions taught more to the attention of believers in this mythological path, but not when it comes to talking about the primordial couple.


To make people believe that Adam and Eve redeemed themselves through their death sentence, that they accepted it and used it to sublimate themselves, the first human couple will often be presented in myth, in their various avatars, as having offered themselves as sacrifices, accepting to die in order to open the way to immortality and thereby show the way to their children.
We’ll see that this will often manifest itself for each of them in a Christ-like description of death, for example hanged or tied to a post.
It should be pointed out, however, that while this presentation will often have all the hallmarks of a Christ-like sacrifice, it is in no way of the same nature as the biblical one since, whereas Christ’s sacrifice is a substitutionary one (in the sense that he dies as a ransom to save people who are prisoners and unable to save themselves), Adam and Eve’s sacrifice is presented as self-sacrificial. It will be a sacrifice of ego in the sense that it redeems no one but themselves. However, by making this self-sacrifice, this self-purchase, they will be taught that they have shown the way to their children, who, if they too wish to achieve sublimation, must be prepared to do the same. This is why Adam and Eve, in their various divinized avatars, are presented as guides to the dead, guides in the afterlife who show their devotee-children the way out of the darkness of death, and, through their death, eventually attain the divine essence.


To this notion, we must add another that would come to confer a very special power on Eve, the primordial mother deified as mother-goddess, a power that would eventually ensure her pre-eminence in worship.

Indeed, the first prophecy of Genesis (Genesis 3:15), announcing the coming of a savior Christ, a son, a seed, who would reduce to nothing the works of the opponent of the true biblical God, introduced the notion of son.

As we shall see, Mythology has also completely reappropriated the coming into existence of a savior son.
She will do so in a rather surprising way, by teaching that the Father of gods (the primordial man, Adam, divinized), while he had managed by his own means, through his death presented as self-sacrificial to redeem himself and thus become the great divinity, he had nevertheless made the choice, out of love for his children, to remain on earth, in order to continue to play a dual role as ruler and spiritual guide for his children.

To this end, and so that he himself could play the role of the heralded messiah-savior, it was simply taught that he had reincarnated in his son, and so on, by extension, in all the members of his main physical and spiritual lineage or dynasty.
(In this sense, for example, Pharaoh(s) is/are the reincarnation of the great solar god Re).

So it’s vital to understand that the son, in all the triads of Mythology, is simply the reincarnation of the Father, after the latter has attained divinity.

In this book, we’ll look at all the symbols used by mythology to represent the son, and there are many.

We’ll also see that, like his parents, the pagan son-messiah, in most of his avatars, will also be presented as a heroic guiding deity, showing humans by example how to successfully take the path of sublimation and thus attain divinity.
We shall see that, even as Mythology recognizes the principle of a ransom to erase faults, it is essentially a question of a Christ, not in the Christian sense of the term, i.e. offering his life as a substitutionary sacrifice, but rather of a guiding divinity teaching that each person can save himself, by virtue of the mythological dogma which is, as you have understood, that each person is his own Christ the Saviour.

Having said this, it is equally essential to understand the means by which this reincarnation, or rebirth of the Father in his Son, will take place:
As we shall see, the first prophecy of Genesis foretold that the coming of the Messiah would be by means of “the Woman”, to use the expression in Genesis.
Now, without going into the details of its real biblical identity, Mythology will also reappropriate this element of prophecy, but by applying it to Eve. According to the mythological version, it was through Eve that the promised Christ the Priest-King would come.
This would be the doctrinal basis for teaching that her husband, dead and divinized, in order to return to earth and play his role as Christ the King-priest, would have to return to the womb of Eve, the mother-goddess, in order to be reborn as the son-god.
We understand that this is the basis of the triads or trinities of Father/Mother/Son that abound in mythology (e.g. Osiris, Isis and Horus).

Moreover, by doctrinal slippage, and although at the same time it was taught that the father of the gods had self-bought alone, it will be taught that it was also his passage at his death through the womb of his mother-goddess wife that enabled him to sublimate himself.
In other words, the matrix of the mother goddess will be granted the power to have washed him clean, purified him of his faults, to make him the great divinity able to merge with the great Whole or, therefore, to remain on earth by means of rebirth to continue to serve as a guide as the father’s reincarnated son.
This process of purification carried out by the matrix will even be detailed as being the result of a triple action of purification of the soul with thus three actions reputed to be carried out by it:
1. mixing and grinding the soul
2. beating, mixing or churning the soul
3. soul burning
In the fourth stage, he will be liberated and reborn as a purified soul of divine essence, or as a son.

We will see all the symbols, and there are many, symbolizing the matrix of the mother goddess as well as those reflecting the reality of her purification process.

We’ll also see that this matrix and, by extension, all the bodily fluids of the mother-goddess and even the father of the gods, are given the virtue of procuring immortality through their literal absorption. We’ll also look at all the symbols – and there are many – that attest to and reflect this same idea.


Logically, the same reasoning by which the deified primordial man, the Father of the gods, had succeeded in sublimating himself in death was applied to believers:
They would have to try, as the Father of the Gods did, to approach their death and “live their death” as a self-sacrifice to pay for their past faults, as an ego-sacrifice. This is undoubtedly the doctrinal reason why candidates for human sacrifice were adorned with all the virtues, since this voluntary self-offering to the great divinity was presented to them as the means par excellence for paying back their faults, imitating her and, like her, becoming once again of divine essence.

However, if by any chance – and this was of course the case for the majority – they were not deemed to be of a sufficiently high spiritual level to achieve this, they were in any case taught that death was akin to a return to the womb of the mother goddess, to a momentary period of darkness marked by the torments of the soul generated by its triple purifying action (grinding, threshing, burning), but the end result would be that (except for the most vile among them) they would eventually emerge washed, cleansed and sublimated, either to become divinities themselves outside the celestial sphere, or to have a new earthly birth.


Generally speaking, if the mythological believer had been unable to sublimate himself during his lifetime, he had to accept as necessary the idea of his human death, the destruction of his body and a punishment in the matrix of the mother goddess, in the afterlife, to pay and be washed of his past faults in order to be totally purified; He could then, thanks to her, experience a new birth, a regeneration, enabling him, after having undergone his cycle of purification, or even after multiple rebirths or reincarnations, to eventually succeed in becoming purely divine again, to merge with the great All, the supreme being.

As we understand it, this acceptance that death was a temporary passage of suffering, necessary for rebirth through the matrix of the Mother Goddess, was to form the doctrinal basis of many teachings on the condition of the dead.

As a result, the spirits of the deceased (or masks) in the afterlife are believed to share different fates, which can be summarily classified into three main categories:

The “good souls” will, often after suffering some form of punishment for their reprehensible acts, obtain an intermediate form of bliss before one day, depending on their evolution, reaching fusion with the supreme deity.

Those who have not done enough good deeds during their lifetime will wander in dimensions, transitory places of suffering (limbo, purgatory, intermediate states of reincarnation) from which they may, out of jealousy or malice, continue to cause harm to the living, and whom we will then have to try to appease and help to eventually reach the same condition as the first.

The vilest souls, for their part, will go to a place of definitive suffering, the prelude to hell.


We understand that this power of purification granted to the mother goddess will give her a real ascendancy over her husband, a predominant role. The fact that she thus becomes the mother of the Father of gods, the Mother of God, will consolidate her omnipotence to such an extent that, as we shall see, the Great All, the Supreme Being of Mythology, who should normally be polygender, will in fact end up being strongly feminine…
At this point, we have reached the end of our examination, and come full circle with the preliminary notion of Supreme Being examined in the introduction.

In the conclusion to volume 2, we’ll highlight in fairly simple terms the various doctrinal markers differentiating the two original biblical and mythological versions.

Let me conclude this comparative summary of the two religions by pointing out that it is absolutely essential to understand these elementary notions, as the whole of archaic and ancient mysticism is based on them, and it will therefore be useful for you, I believe, to return to them periodically, so that you can situate yourself at the right stage in the subject of your examination.

Partager :