Mediums and Adepts
I am anxious to supplement my necessarily brief and somewhat abrupt communication of the week before last with another, explaining my meaning a little more clearly.
The question first demanding answer is surely this: What are we to understand by the word adept? Having a superstitious fancy for knowing what the inventors of words themselves meant by them, I go to my Latin dictionary and find that adeptus is the past participle of the verb dipiscos, and that it signifies to come up to, to reach, to overtake, to get, attain, obtain, the root of the whole matter being AP=Sanskrit, ap, go to, and hence to get.
The mysterious adept is then in his primary essence simply one who attains, not magical powers or knowledge of the absolute necessarily, but quite as possibly a good dinner or a good flogging.
Cicero calls people who have reached old age adepts; and adds that they are always grumbling.
But Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Sinnett use the word in a more restricted, though perfectly lawful manner of their own. “For the purposes of the Theosophical Society,” an adept is one who has attained the faculty of turning out his ‘soul’ upon occasion in order to prove to his semi-scientific neighbours that he really possesses one. And when the maidservants of London, according to the progressive tendency of our times, have formed themselves into a trades union, their higher culture will perhaps prompt them to dignify and distinguish by the title of adept those who can demonstrate attainment of an increased rate of wages, by the wearing of still more gorgeous bonnets on Sundays.
Using the word in the theosophical sense, our next business is to enquire in what respect the adept of theosophy differs from the medium of ordinary “Spiritualism.” As Mr. Massey points out, the distinction consists mainly, if not altogether, in the activity of the one and the passivity of the other, the manifestations being in both cases so similar as to justify us in considering them as identical.
But what I contend for is this, that given the peculiar physical and mental constitution of the sensitive, it depends on his own character and will, and on certain limiting circumstances whether he becomes a medium or an adept; just as when a youth has a straight nose, it depends on character, will and limiting circumstances, whether led by it, he becomes a languishing Narcissus or, leading it, an Admirable Crichton. And further, that both medium and adept are as purely relative terms in Psychonomy as acid and alkali are in chemistry.
The merest tyro in the latter worshipful science knows that, in relation to most bases, a particular substance may be an acid, and from its more constant properties may be even so-named, yet, in relation to one or two bases, behold it is an alkali. And at his peril he forgets the fact in his examinations.
Bases are the crucial test in chemistry, and basal men are the crucial test in life, quietly taking the place that belongs to them, and proving many accredited swans mere geese after all. Such men are often sensitives; the impressors are often the impressible; a mighty energy is in them, giving them dominion over the dim vapour of a mortal shape. Trained or not they are nature’s adepts, and in their presence your high-flying Simon Magus turns willing medium. These contentions of mine will be strongly supported if I can show, and in my Studies in Psychonomy, I hope very sufficiently to do so, that many a despised medium in the more resolute moments of his early career, has exactly the same power over his “raps” which Madame Blavatsky is declared to have over hers, and is no more the slave of guiding Simon, or rather Peter, than she is of Koot Hoomi Lal Singh.
Drim nan Righ, Argyll, July 3rd, 1881.
Information for Theosophists, from an Adept
“When that which is perfect is come, then that which is imperfect shall be done away.” In writing plainly and without mystification upon a subject whereon there is not one book in existence which can be taken throughout and verbatim as an entirely trustworthy guide, while on the other hand the book-market is crowded on this subject with productions of chaotic minds, it is not surprising that the words of Khunrath—“Fuerwahr ich mache die narren toll, und jage die Phantasten wider mich in Hamisch”—should often occur tome while writing.
Before my articles appeared, “Theosophy” was currently supposed to mean the lucubrations of the Theosophical Society. I had to give words their proper meaning and to place myself in a true position, because while the Theosophical Society asserts itself to be the way and the truth, and points to India and Thibet for the attainment of adeptship, I must either avow myself to be their ally and disciple, or disavow all connection with them. The former I could not do, for I have not learnt one iota from them, and am quite opposed to many of their eccentric ideas. And if the latter course is falling foul of the said Society, I regret not having done so.
Should a number of ordinary men combine and call themselves a college of science, they cannot impose thereby upon an actual man of science. That is the position of the Theosophical Society. I consider all remarks coming from that quarter as simply emblems of incompetence, and shall henceforth give no reply to them.
I do not write merely for the few members of the Theosophical Society “who are already perfectly familiar with those truths” (?) but for all earnest enquirers, and I cannot teach those who imagine that they already know.
The first principles of true Theosophy and Occult science are (1) physically, a method of life—as I have set forth in my previous articles —and (2) psychically, a practical knowledge of regeneration.
As far as I am aware, the London Theosophists, with the exception of two lady members, are all flesh-eaters as well as tobacco-smokers, and teetotalism is not the rule among them. This settles the physical question.
As concerns the psychical part, in the words of an adept “No one knows a thing until he can do it.” “To know is to be,” in the Occult. To know of regeneration is to be in the regenerate state. Let Theosophists be careful how they lightly say they know a thing.
As concerns the Theosophical Society, I perceive that their real object is the reverse of their manifest assertions, and is nothing more <... continues on page 11-143 >
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 463, July 8, 1881, pp. 19-20
-
London Spiritualist, No. 463, July 8, 1881, pp. 20-2