Our Public Men
The Herald of Progress recently published a statement that public men had not yet been found in our ranks who were able to make the scattered forces of Spiritualism pull somewhat together. Had the remark not been true, much discredit to the movement would have been averted. The first of the three great blows of recent times was caused by holding cabinet seances in public, long after such seances bi had been thoroughly condemned for proselytising purposes by Spiritualists who understood them. We published, in advance, that a crash must come, and it came a few weeks later. The next blow was due to the public recognition by certain Spiritualists, of mediums who came to England in extreme poverty, and suddenly were seen rolling in vast wealth. Good public men, capable of guarding the interests of the movement, would have ignored them under such suspicious conditions, as this journal performed its part in doing, and made the temperature so warm for them until they volunteered the explanation which, perhaps, no one had a right to directly ask, as to have nipped their power for evil in the bud. The third and present great blow to the movement is due to the circumstance that when the facts became known, the whole Spiritualist movement did not prosecute the two mediums, instead of leaving the public to suppose that Spiritualists at large sympathise with them. When hi such men as Professor Zollner, Mr. Crookes, and many others have risked their popularity over Spiritualism, it is hard upon them that two or three public men cannot be id found willing to sacrifice five or six hours per week, to initiate the steps necessary to uphold the honour of the movement before the world, bi If such men were at work, great numbers of Spiritualists would be ready to support them. “All-round” men are wanted, capable of guarding the interests of psychology as a whole, instead of riding small hobbies to the death in a spirit of selfish indifference. Iniquities might have been checked and cruel wrongs to the innocent been redressed, had we had any competent men, above the influence of gossip and slander, unselfish enough to have investigated passing events to the roots and to have initiated public action thereon. For want of such action psychological science has received a check it will take years to recover.
As to Some Qualities of Buddhistic Adepts
In the present controversy in your pages as to Theosophy, Occultism and Adeptism, it may be interesting to revert to what are the true and distinguishing characteristics of Adeptism, so far as morality is concerned, according to the teaching of Buddba, Sakya-Muni.
In the “Santanna Phala Sutta,” copied in appendix No. II to the “Lotus de la bonne lot” translated by E. Burnouf, is an enumeration of the moral qualities necessary for an Adept, and for the followers of Buddhism.
I translate the passage from page 463 of the “Lotus de la bonne loi”—
“Here below, O great King, the religious person having renounced taking the life of anything that lives, has aversion to any idea of murder. He lays down the stick, the sword, is full of modesty and pity, is compassionate and good for all life, and for every creature. This even is counted to him for virtue.
“Having renounced taking what is not given him, he has an aversion for every idea of robbery; receiving as a gift all that is given to him, desiring only what is given, he lives with a heart thus purified. When the religious person has this merit, it is counted as virtue.
“Having renounced incontinence, he is chaste; he has an aversion to the gross law of the union of the sexes; that is counted as virtue.
“Having renounced lying, he has aversion for every false word; he speaks the truth, he is the whole truth, he is sure, worthy of confidence, enemy of all falseness in his relations with men.
“This is counted to him for virtue.
“Having renounced all slandering, he has an aversion for scandal and evil speaking. He does not go about repeating what he has heard in order to cause anger; he reconciles those who have been divided; he does not separate those who are at one; he rejoices in conciliation, loves it, is impassioned for it, his language is such as to produce it; this is counted as virtue.
“Having renounced all gross language, he has an aversion to such language. All soft speech, agreeable to the ears, affectionate, going to the heart, polished, beloved by many people, gracious to many, is the language he employs; this is counted as virtue.
“Having renounced frivolous discourses, he has an aversion for all language of that kind.
“He has an aversion to destroy any collection of grain or of creatures; he only takes one repast;* he abstains from eating in the night; he does not like to eat at improper hours; he does not like dances, songs, concerts or dramatic representations.
“He has an aversion for dress, or to adorn himself with garlands, perfumes or oils. He has an aversion to receive gold or money, or unripe grain, raw flesh, a woman or a young girl, a slave of either sex, a goat, a ram, a cock, a pig, an elephant, an ox, a horse or a mare. He has an aversion to receive a cultivated field or a property. He has an aversion to trade. He has an aversion to fraudulent weights and measures; he has an aversion to walking in tortuous ways, to fraud, trickery and blameable actions. He does not like any act of violence.”
Then follows a long list, in great detail, of forbidden means of gaining a livelihood, and among them is “communicating with spirits,” (Bhutas) which, although very curious, is too long for this paper.
“And how, O great King, does the religious person shut to the gate of the senses? If the organ of sight be not restrained, if it be dispersed on every side, then violent desires, despair, sin and culpable conditions will follow. Then he succeeds in restraining it; he guards it, putting a bridle on the organ of sight.
“In the same manner, having perceived sounds by the sense of hearing, odours by the sense of smell, tastes by the palate, and tangible attributes by the sense of touch; these are the subjects of his reflections: if the organ of the mind be not restrained, if it be allowed to wander, then violent desires, despair, sin and guilty conditions will follow. Then he succeeds in restraining it, he watches over it, and succeeds in placing a bridle upon the organ of the spirit. He who is endowed with this sublime empire over his senses, enjoys an internal, pleasure which nothing can take away. It is y thus that the religious person shuts the gate of his senses.
“Having abandoned all cupidity for this world, having renounced the vice of wickedness, full of pity and of goodness for all creatures, he purifies his mind from the vice of evil.
<... continues on page 11-175 >
* Buddha was stricter than Sororates, who declared that everyone who took more than two repasts was a barbarian.”—A. J. C.
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 466, July 29, 1881, pp. 49-50
-
London Spiritualist, No. 466, July 29, 1881, pp. 50-2