< Adeptship versus Mediumship (continued from page 11-148) >
through a passive medium, though I doubt whether a long-lost article has ever been thus recovered at request, or a permanent duplication of another article (not an apport) effected. Have these and similar useful feats ever been performed by spirits, three or four such in a single alter noon, by request, in the light, without any of the usual conditions of a stance? I think not. But that is not my point, which is, that when all is consistent with the alleged control, and nothing inconsistent, an essential distinction is established between these facts, and the manifestations of mediumship, wherein independent, free agency is always apparent, and the more apparent, the stronger the force, notwithstanding that the wishes of the medium may sometimes be complied with. I quite agree that in mediumship there is an observable connection between the manifestations and the disposition of the medium; and I am far from saying that a medium may not learn to control some minor phenomena consciously which are commonly accordant with his or her conscious or unconscious desires. That is another question.
You will, I hope, see now why I decline to select this case or that from Mr. Sinnett’s book as establishing a decisive distinction. As I said before, the book, or great part of it, must itself be studied, if the whole force of the distinction is to be apparent. Further discussion on this subject I must leave to others, unless anything especially requiring notice from myself should be said.
8th July, 1881.
[To the problem of the "recovery of a long-lost article at request," we gave another solution last week, than the one put forth in this letter. The evidence for the "permanent duplication" of an article, depends (if our memory serves us rightly, with Mr. Sinnett's book not at hand), upon the veracity of a native Hindoo servant. If the powers about a physical medium chose to say that the medium controlled the manifestations, they would take care to produce only these phenomena, previously common enough, in which they could express some knowledge through the medium about the manifestation, a few minutes before it was witnessed. The manifestations seem to be all of a class with which we were familiar some ten years ago, and to which in our opinion, an ascetic life would be death.-Ed.]
< Do Adepts Exist? (continued from page 11-172) >
beings all those blessings he had himself received “in solitude, retirement and with God,”
He had no “fear of mixing with bad magnetism,” but on the contrary sought out, and by preference associated with crowds of immoral and diseased human beings, and while quasi and self-satisfied adepts would seem to cry out if you so much as accidentally tread on one of the smallest of their toes, Jesus, on the contrary, as He hung on the cross, said of his murderers, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
I observe, sir, that you repeatedly appear to amuse yourself and your readers by announcing your correspondent, J. K., as an adept; but, so far as I know, J. K. has never himself claimed this title either in your pages or elsewhere.
This gentleman evinces, by his writings, a subtle knowledge of spiritual things, and his life is evidently one of purity and great desires; but inasmuch as he is not a clairvoyant, nor one who can project his double, nor one of strong magnetic and healing powers, he cannot rightly be christened by yourself, “An Adept.”
He seems to be one of those who, because he abstains from flesh meat, says: “I thank God I am not as other men,” but were he greater than he is, he would “smite upon his breast and cry, God be merciful to me a sinner.”
A great one has said in effect “that man, although perchance he may eat flesh, if he love his brother is greater than he whose food is fruits, if he despise a loving human soul.”
Another has said “not in self-exaltation and in contempt of others consists greatness—but in that calm silence which is strength stands the true adept, as his fragrance fills the house.”
One may live on cereals and fruit, and yet mistake hysteria for greatness, but of the true adept it is far otherwise, for in his presence—
“The stern are sad when he is by, |
There are many Britons patiently, and slowly and laboriously, desiring to become adepts, but as yet none have reached further than the threshold, and adeptship on the Indian model cannot, I conceive, be achieved in London, nor is it desirable that it should.
But as those who desire good Spiritual powers must live pure lives, the ordeal must so far be for good, and if any man or woman whose nature is Spiritual, will endeavour to live as prescribed in the Sermon on the Mount, the rule for the highest adeptship, and will persevere therein for seven years, that individual must receive spiritual gifts which will not only confer an unspeakable blessing on himself, or herself, but on all who come within u the sphere of his or her magnetism.”
The Theosophical Society
Sir,—Since the qualifications for “adeptship” are being discussed, and individual claims are under review, I am entitled to call attention to the psychical paradox presented to us by a new candidate. It will be strange if the tone and temper of J. K.’s latest communication dispose readers to recognise in him the teacher who “knows.” Nor are men of real attainments found publicly boasting of their “calibre.” But literary arrogance and acrimony leave only a bad taste behind; misrepresentations, whether wilful or ignorant, call for severer judgment.
“As concerns the Theosophical Society,” says J. K., “I perceive that their real object is the reverse of their manifest assertions, and is nothing more than the propagation and furthering of the interests of a disguised priest-craft, as the rules of the Arya Samaj palpably indicate.” Later, he refers to by number (but does not set out) certain rules of the Arya Samaj. He then describes them as “the quintessence of the most impudent samples of Jesuitism,” and adds: “Thus far only to prove that I know enough of the Theosophical Society,” &c. What the attempt to establish such a charge by such evidence does prove, is that he is absolutely ignorant of the Theosophical Society, and of the nature of such relations, as <... continues on page 11-171 >
<Untitled> (I hope I may...)
...
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 464, July 15, 1881, pp. 28-30