< A Daylight Seance in the Streets of Rome (continued from page 11-133) >
acquainted with your desires. Indeed, I gave you evidence just now that I knew a question you wanted to ask me, before you uttered it, and next I gave you what you wanted, at the very moment you desired to light your cigar. Sit then regularly for manifestations, and we will give you wonderful exhibitions of our power. You know how to guide mediums, so continue your seances, and you will be very pleased with the results. Few should be present at the sittings, and those alone admitted who come in friendship and goodwill.” The spirit subsequently was true to his word, and we had manifestations calculated to convince disbelievers at a single stance. I will record the particulars in these pages soon.
22, Montague Place, Russell Square, London, WC.
June 29th, 1881.
Theosophy and Spiritualism
Sir,—I might perhaps leave you to settle accounts with your correspondent, J. K., and to demand from him the proofs of his assertion that “the phenomena attendant upon real adeptship are on an entirely different plane from Spiritualism.” Allow me, however, to observe that the discussion is not advanced by ignoring the single distinction, in regard to evidence, which I have endeavoured to point out; or by the wholly mistaken statement that I have not denied “that the whole point at issue depends on the assertion of one person, except to the extent that a single witness, &c.” Why is it, I ask again, that we believe the statements of mediums to the effect that the phenomena are independent of their conscious will and control, and that they are ignorant of the processes by which these phenomena are produced? It is because we see that this is evidently the case, or because we have no evidence to the contrary, and no reason to believe that they are in fact magicians, who, while exercising their powers, choose to disclaim them, and to give the effects the appearance of being independently caused. Now what would be the proper and only possible verification of the opposite assertion, that the phenomena were caused by their own will and science? Obviously, just such proofs of selection and control as no medium can give, and which are attested by Mr. Sinnett and many others in relation to the phenomena occurring in the presence of Madame Blavatsky. To say that the whole point at issue rests on the unsupported statement of this lady is wholly to ignore the verification which gives that statement its only scientific value.* That Madame Blavatsky does not profess to be herself the chief agent, but ascribes the power to other living persons, makes no difference as regards the distinction to be established. The same sort of evidence which would support her statement that she was herself the agent, is the proof of her statement that the agent is another person, even though of this person we have no direct knowledge. For the evidence does not depend on our knowledge of the individual; indeed, such knowledge would add nothing whatever to the evidence of his powers. Your suggestion, therefore, that Colonel Olcott should publish particulars of his interviews with the “Brothers,” appears, with submission, to be wholly irrelevant.
Further, I should like to ask J. K. what reason he has for asserting that “even the very first physical and psychical principles of true theosophy and occult science are quite unknown to and unpractised by the members of that organisation, the Theosophical Society?” The admission, freely made, that they are not “adepts,” by no means involves such a complete avowal of ignorance of “first principles.” I can only say that so far as these first principles are expounded in J. K.’s letter, I believe that the members of the Society in question will recognise these as truths with which they are already perfectly familiar. I regret that a letter which otherwise might have been read with satisfaction as containing some important truth, should be spoiled by disparagement of a society of which the writer evidently knows nothing. Nor is this the first time that J. K. has gratuitously attacked it. Not long ago, he was engaged (very properly, I thought) in refuting some manifestly spurious inventions about the Kabbalah, but in doing so, he must needs fall foul of the Theosophical Society, which had no more connection with those notions than with any other anonymous vagaries. As to the Eastern fraternity, he is confessedly as ignorant of them as he is, apparently, of Indian philosophy, and its applications, or of the highest spiritual attainments of Yogis. It is the study of these things that enables some members of the Theosophical Society to believe in the actual <... continues on page 11-135 >
* The point of difference, then, with our correspondent, is that we assert that no such verification is before the public. We feel certain that by mediumship like that of Mrs. Kate Fox-Jencken and Mrs. Guppy combined, every phenomenon described in Mr. Sinnett’s book might be expected to be witnessed under exactly the same conditions. Will our correspondent quote from Mr. Sinnett’s book verbatim the alleged “proofs of selection and control” which have satisfied him?— Ed.
Editor's notes
- ↑ Theosophy and Spiritualism by C.C.M., London Spiritualist, No. 462, July 1, 1881, pp. 8-9
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 462, July 1, 1881, pp. 8-9