Our Contemporaries
“J. K.” is once again to the front with a communication intended to expose the errors of the Theosophists—but it is to be feared that little good will come of his somewhat strong language.
“Two foibles,” he says, “existing in undisciplined minds, both originating in a wrongful love of dominion, namely Utopianism, and a desire to command spirits, have given some experienced Hindoos the cue to bring themselves into notice. Hindoo mystification, acting on Western credulity, brought out the Theosophical Society. Utopian sophistries for love of the romantic, and what is called ‘Hindoo Philosophy,’ but which is rather mysticism, was the Hindoo stock-in-trade. They discoursed on the brotherhood of the human race, but, in the rules of their Theosophical Society, they consider only those to be brothers who have joined their clique.’’
And again:— “A craze for outlandish verbiage has also been inaugurated by the Theosophical Society; moral and philosophical platitudes are supposed to becomes gems of occult wisdom, encrusted in hard words. Some individuals lull themselves into the sweet dream that by virtue of half-a-dozen jaw-breakers they are in advance of the world. These are the learned Theosophist.”
After this censure for the use of “jaw-breakers" and “philosophical platitudes,” what will the reader think of the following simple exposition of his subject by “J.K.” himself?—
“In every human creature there lies latent in the involitional part of the being a sufficient quantity of the omniscient, the absolute. To induce the latent absolute, which is the involitional part of our volitional conscious being, to become manifest, it is essential that the volitional part of our being should become latent. After the preparatory purification from acquired depravities, a kind of introversion has to take place; the involitional has to become volitional, by the volitional becoming involitional. When the conscious becomes semi unconscious, the, to us, formerly unconscious becomes fully conscious. The particle of the omniscient that is within us, the vital and growing, sleepless, involitional occult or female principle being allowed to express itself in the volitional, mental manifest, or masculine part of the human being, while the latter remains in a state of perfect passivity, the two formerly dissevered parts become re-united as one holy (wholly) perfect being, and then the divine manifestation is inevitable.”
The editor thus corrects a rather curious erratum:—Owing to errors of the printer in “C.C.M.’s” letter last week, the sentence “The ascetic egotist is further from the good and the free lover, who thinketh no evil,” was printed instead of “The ascetic egotist is further from the goal than the free liver who thinketh no evil.”
Clairvoyance
Ab a general rule, the New York Times treats such subjects as Spiritualism from a humorous point of view; but some experiments in clairvoyance and “mediumship” lately made by a Dr. Beard seem to that journal worthy of serious consideration, and have not, it believes, attracted the attention they deserve. Dr. Beard, who has always professed a great contempt for Spiritualism, has lately been induced to make some experiments in clairvoyance, and has been surprised to find there is something in it He is said to have “proved that there are persons who, in certain circumstances, can read writing, or for that matter print—merely by bringing it in contact with the skin of the forehead. There is not the slightest reason to doubt his report. When a chemist of character and ability tells us that he has made an experiment and has obtained certain results, we accept his assertion, and the experiments made by Dr. Beard are entitled to a like reception. We may consider that it has been fully established that a young woman whose eyes Dr. Beard had carefully bandaged was able to read a page of writ ng that was laid on her forehead. In other words, the claims made by the ‘professors’ of clairvoyance are to some extent true.” The New York Times is not induced by this to believe in the physical manifestation phenomena of Spiritualism, but its incredulity with regard to clairvoyance is shaken. “Nine-tenths of Spiritualism are trickery,” the journal says; but there is a tenth remaining that puzzles the inquirer. The journal has faith in the story of the young woman and the folded paper, and speaks of “one medium of wide notoriety who reads questions written on slips of paper rolled into small pellets.” There is more than one who does this, and who makes answers written in blood-red letters appear on or beneath the skin of his arm; and that is, in fact, one of the very simplest tricks that a conjuror of average ability ever performed. But the New York Times has evident faith in the one pellet-reading medium, and says—“Granting the truth of Dr. Beard’s experiments, there is no reason why we should not grant the ability of this medium to read the writing on his pellets without the use of his eyes. And if this can be done, it is, to say the least, not at all incredible that certain mediums possess the power of reading thoughts that have not been committed to writing.” If there is no more in Dr. Beard’s young woman than in the medium, it cannot be admitted that “one phase of clairvoyance has been proved to have a substantial basis.”
Matter and Method*
...
<... continues on page 11-146 >
Editor's notes
Sources
-
Light, v. 1, No. 30, July 30, 1881, p. 238
-
Light, v. 1, No. 30, July 30, 1881, p. 237