Abstinences and Theosophy
A. J. C., in his otherwise interesting article in your paper this week, takes occasion to say, “C. C. M. and the majority of the Theosophists seem to differ from the undoubted teaching and practice of Buddha and his followers as to avoiding flesh diet and alcohol,” &c. Having already corrected this mistake I have some reason to complain of its repetition. In fact, as regards myself, I originally began the system of abstinences as early as in my eighteenth year, when I first read Plato. That did not last long; I became a vegetarian again, leaving off wine, &c., nearly six years ago, on joining the Theosophical Society, directly in consequence of the teaching then imparted, which was in accordance with my early convictions. For a reason I need not mention, I resumed a slight and often almost nominal meat diet, till two or three months ago, when influenced by two friends in this country for whose attainments I have a deep respect, I again altogether abandoned such food. I had taken wine, &c., occasionally, a little claret once a week after a Turkish bath, and now and then when I had to sit through a long dinner party, but might fairly have described myself as an habitual abstainer, as I am now entirely.
It is highly probable, as A. J. C. remarks, that Gautama Buddha would have proscribed tobacco, had it been used in his time. But your correspondent must remember that there is a great difference in aim and spirit between a merely pure regimen and the asceticism inculcated and practised by great devotees. The rationale of this is not simply the purification of the physical system, but complete subjection of the sensuous life. That is a far more serious undertaking; and few who have not tried it, (as I have done.) have any adequate notion of what it implies. As to food, you may pamper the palate just as easily with fruits and dainty breads and vegetables, as with beef and mutton. But the sensuous life is merely animal. There are diabolical tendencies in us which are quite consistent with very rigid abstinence from material indulgences, and which may even be aggravated by withdrawal from these.
I should like, if I can, to put an end to the absurd assumption that I and others of the Theosophical Society in London are “training for adeptship.” To become “Adepts,” in the sense of developing extraordinary psychical powers is not our special ambition; to become Theosophists, is. Theosophy, or knowledge of the Divine, can be obtained only by suppression of egotism. The divine life is impersonal; it does not say “I” and “mine.” You cannot irritate it, you cannot excite in it envy, or malice, or cupidity. The base of these passions is gone; not indeed annihilated, but submerged, transfigured, rather, in what Boehme called the Life of the Second Principle. That is Light and Love, the nature of the regenerate, from which his will, henceforth, acts spontaneously. No matter in what school of theosophy you learn, ancient, mediæval, modem, Eastern or Western.
“This, and but this, is the Gospel alway.” The form of expression, only, is different. Deific vision and thaumaturgic powers may, or may not, result during this embodied state. Probably the latter requires a scientific knowledge of occult nature, possessed, I believe, by these Eastern adepts of whom we have heard so much and seen so little. We, of the Theosophical Society, may believe these powers to be attainable, and to have been actually attained; we do not, therefore, regard their attainment as our ideal and acme of perfection. The supposition that we do is mere misconception and prejudice. Grossly inaccurate statements about us may be intended as “friendly warnings,” but such unwarrantable misrepresentations are usually considered to justify some degree of indignant repudiation, at least in the unregenerate, like your obedient servant,
July 29th, 1881.
The Arya Samaj
Sir,—I observe that a correspondent in your paper asks for information about the Arya Samaj. This is what Professor Monier Williams says about it in his book, Hinduism, published last year.—“Other forms of theistic al Samaj exist in india. . . A new Brahman reformer named Dayananda has recently appeared, and is attracting many adherents in the west of India. He is engaged in writing anew commentary to the Rig Veda, which he interprets monotheistic ally, and his Society is called the Arya Samaj. We must acknowledge with thankfulness the good these theistical societies are doing by their uncompromising opposition to idolatry, fanaticism, superstition, and caste. They are the present protestants of India.” But he suspects them of pantheistic proclivities. I hope we may be spared any further prejudicial nonsense, originating in absolute ignorance of what is going on in India, about the Arya Samaj.
July 29th.
Answers to correspondents
A Theosophist writes to us that the Theosophical idea will gradually check the irregularities connected with mediumship. We think that ample evidence is on record that at present the Theosophists are more than double as much under the influence of the outcome of physical mediumship, as any other people connected with Spiritualism who have formed themselves into a society.
<Untitled> (Mr. Alexandre Aksakof...)
Mr. Alexandre Aksakof, after a brief visit to England, has returned to the Continent.
Editor's notes
- ↑ Abstinences and Theosophy by C.C.M., London Spiritualist, No. 467, August 5, 1881, p. 70
- ↑ The Arya Samaj by C.C.M., London Spiritualist, No. 467, August 5, 1881, p. 71
- ↑ Answers to correspondents by unknown author, London Spiritualist, No. 467, August 5, 1881, p. 71
- ↑ Mr. Alexandre Aksakof... by unknown author, London Spiritualist, No. 467, August 5, 1881, p. 71
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 467, August 5, 1881, p. 70
-
London Spiritualist, No. 467, August 5, 1881, p. 71