158
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
[It requires ages to become an adept]. A full-blown Adept or an INITIATE. There is a great difference between the two. An Adept is one versed in some and any special Art or Science. An “Initiate” is one who is initiated into the mysteries of the Esoteric or Occult philosophy—a Hierophant.
[In an article dealing with the discoveries of John Worrell Keely, mention is made of his views to the effect that “as long as there is anything to sub-divide this anything sub-divided represents matter; and sub-division can go on through infinity: never ending, and yet no ultimatum reached. The luminiferous track is the door that opens on the seventh sub-division, still leaving an infinite field beyond.” To this, H.P.B. states:]
This is precisely what the Occult Sciences teach, and what more than one renowned Mystic and Kabalist has asserted in his time. In fact, as we have already remarked before now—Mr. Keely’s discoveries corroborate wonderfully the teachings of Occult Astronomy and other Sciences.
[Keely also asserted that “all corpuscles, no matter how great the sub-division may be, remain an unalterable sphere in shape.”]
Such is the occult teaching—also.
[Keely spoke of the sun as a dead body, an inert mass.]
Between Mr. Keely calling the Sun “a dead body,” and the Occult Doctrine maintaining that what we call the Sun 159is a reflection of untold electric brightness, the “veil which covers and conceals the living Sun behind,” there is but a difference in the mode of expressions; the fundamental idea is the same. The shadow on the wall produced by a living man or object is the inanimate, or dead effect of an animate and living cause which intercepts the rays of light. The Sun we see is “an inert mass” of adumbrations, the unreal phantom of the real Sun, which, but for this veil, would consume our earth, and probably all the planets with its fierce radiancy. If it has been calculated of that solar “phantom” we see, that the heat emitted by it in a single second would be enough “to melt a shell of ice covering the entire surface of the earth to a depth of 1 mile 1,457 yards,” what would be the intensity of sunlight if the invisible Sun were suddenly unveiled? And this is what will happen, the Occult Doctrine teaches, when the hour of Pralaya strikes— after which the Sun himself will be disrupted.
[In connection with Pancho, a character in Dr. Franz Hartmann’s story, “The Talking Image of Urur,” realizing that he had been a fool.]
As everyone is, or will be, who, feeling drawn toward Occultism, instead of proceeding prudently to acquire it and thus learn the truth, permits his fancy to run off after his own preconceived ideas, or lends ear to the insane talk of fanatical enthusiasts. Those whom sober occultists call “Masters,” though so vastly superior to average humanity, are not Genii or Enchanters out of the “Arabian Nights,” but mortal men with abnormal powers.
[In connection with slanders and misrepresentations on the part of the Chicago Religio-Philosophical Journal and the claims of Hiram E. Butler.]
This is just what we said in our March editorial. And now, when all that had to be exposed has been so dealt with in the United States, we can only wonder at the animus displayed by the Religio-Philosophical Journal of Chicago against us. We see by a letter published in it, March 23 ultimo, from the President of the “Boston T.S.,” Mr. J. Ransom Bridge, that “it [the Journal] states that it is informed by those who claim to know that . . . Madame Blavatsky is 160determined to ruin Butler” [!?]. When “those who claim to know” can also prove that Madame Blavatsky had [not] heard Butler’s name mentioned before the end of last year, or even knew of his existence, then their “claim to know” would have acquired at least one leg to stand upon.
The “Butler” exposé followed almost immediately our first acquaintance with the pretensions of this virtuous person, as the President of our Boston T.S. well knows. Such being the case, the anonymous he who “claims to know,” must not feel hurt, or take offence, if we now publicly state that his information against us is either a deliberate and malicious falsehood, or soap-bubble gossip. In every case the respected literary veteran, called the R.-P. Journal, ought to show more discretion than to be ever repeating unverified cackle, when not deliberate calumny, against a person who has always wished it success, as it has now done for years. We stand for truth, but wish the ruin of no man.
[Comment on a Reply written by Prof. Elliott Coues to an inquirer concerning various theosophical teachings on the after-death states. Coues signed himself “A Psychic Researcher.”]
This reply speaks for itself, and no theosophist could answer any better and explain the situation with more clearness, or in a more orthodox esoteric spirit. Only Professor E. Coues, being a Theosophist, we are at a loss to understand why he should sign himself so modestly “A Psychic Researcher”? We only hope this is not synonymous with—”member of the S.P.R.” As a Fellow of the T.S. we can only congratulate and thank the Professor; as a member of S.P.R. we should be doubtful of his motives. We might be really alarmed at the signature, did we not know that, do and say what he may, Prof. Coues’ love of occultism is as great as his mystic powers and that he can never be untrue to either.