A True "Adept" to the Fore
We have received a long polemical article from the criticiser of the articles on “The Genesis of the Soul,” of which we make the following abridgment. There is not space to spare for so very much about this subject, so the one correspondent had better finish his articles first, and the other give any useful formation he can on the subject, afterwards.
That “M. D.” may not fondly think he has annihilated me with the butt end of his last article, I beg to inform him that I am in excellent bodily health, and not in the least mental distress; although expecting far more conclusive replies to my plain questions, which for the greatest part remain unanswered. My
patience was sorely tried when I saw his articles with their outrageous title, “The Genesis of the Soul.” Any Kabbalist could have told him that “the soul being eternal, never had a beginning,” and has no end. “M. D.” has written on something which is not, and cannot be the soul; but it may be something else, or it may have no existence external to his own fancy. If the whole series had been written by anther and a right-thinking man, who had never heard of Kabbalism and Kabbalists, it might have grown into a tolerably readable and fallacious article on Cosmogony, or Physiophilosophy, or Spiritual Evolution, or Evolutionary Spiritualism, or, in brief, anything else than what its present title would indicate.
A few words, however, on errors in his last article.
There are no three sister Kabbalahs. The true Kabbalah is but one, and has only one secret, which is so simple that a child can understand it; verily only a child can. Why does not “M.D.” tell us this secret, and why will not he reply to my former question, “whether he speaks from individual experience?”
That the Hebrews were the only Kabbalists I never insinuated. In my last article I mentioned Thomas Vaughan, an Englishman, as a Kabbalist and an Adept. The Hebrews as Monotheists retained the knowledge in greater purity than the surrounding nations; a true tradition is still among them (not the vulgar oral law); there are Adepts among them, but y are few.
To “M.D.” the Kabbalah may appear “denaturased, supernaturalised, and spiritualized;” to me “the Word has become flesh,” and the Kabbalah is not a scholastic theory but a reality and a life practice. There is not a step in the way that I point out to others that I do not go myself. I write of what I know, and this is all my difference with “M. D.”
“M. D.” would have me “consider the value of doctrines as doctrines, as well as their relation to Modern Science,” and he most pathetically deplores that I “misunderstand and undervalue Modern Science, and fail to appreciate his teachings of his ancient wisdom.” Nevertheless I ruthlessly insist that the Kabbalah has no connection whatever with Modern Science.
I regret to perceive that Occultism has become “Olcottism.” Isis is considered to be unveiled, and something which they call Theosophy is taught ex cathedra, by a clique, and radically wrong.
Engaged as I am in official duties, literary work, studies of the Occult, and scientific research, my time is so occupied that I really cannot go on exposing all the errors which arc now written on this subject. Unheeding the raven’s croak I shall continue in my own way and cannot enter into further controversy. Further articles on the practice of the Kabbalah are in the hands of the Editor of this valued paper.
I shall affirm therein what I know to be the truth, but shall not point out errors in other people’s papers. Rejoice, all ye theosophical dabblers and freely expose your ignorance. Be your writings ever so perverse, not a word of disapproval or censure shall ye hear from me and with safety to yourselves can ye now defy me!
Seriously speaking, the doctrines of Kabbalism had more chance while neglected, than now that they are fashionably sought after and wrongly interpreted. For better is the simplicity of ignorance than the pride of false science.
Theosophy is not the Theosophy of the Society, and the self-styled Theosophists have no monopoly of God-knowledge. I am not aware that there is any one among them that is an Adept.
Talking about these subjects will not advance you; now is the time to betake yourselves earnestly to the task of working out your regeneration.
I do not recommend books, but practice—a right, pure, simple life. True Kabbalah can only be learnt from a true initiate. The teachings of Jesus and Buddha arc trustworthy, but many interpolations have to be rejected. <... continues on page 11-59.1 >
Inlay
< A True "Adept" to the Fore11-59 (continued from unknown page) >
Plotinos is one of the most honest teachers, and his works have least suffered from depredations and forgeries.
The Kabbalah is not at all what Cyclopaedias make it out to be. It was only from the teachings of an Adept that I became acquainted with the true doctrine.
For scholars, Dr. Carter Blake has given excellent information, but hardly any one of the books enumerated can be taken as a practical guide. They are invaluable however for literary inquirers. The extensive knowledge of Dr. Carter Blake on this subject has most agreeably surprised me.
Readers who are not interested in this, our folly, will probably think that I oppose “M. D.” because two of a trade cannot agree. Nevertheless this is not strictly correct, for I am in no wise connected with the professional Theo-sophists, I mean the talkers on the subject. I am no ferocious individual; I only consider that false teachers have no right to exist.
“Mnemosyne” need not tremble in his shoes, but may rest assured that further information is forthcoming to him or her. I will roar as gently as a sucking dove all through the pages of this paper, if the Editor kindly permits it.
But as some people have most openly appropriated and perverted the teachings I would give them, and as they persist in giving the simple truth a coating of their errors, calculating only how much knowledge they can get out of me in order that they may appropriate, distort and reproduce it as their own, let them prate ever so much about Kabbalah and Theosophy I must remain unhonored by their acquaintance, for I want them not as teachers, decline them as pupils, and prefer to remain unknown.
<Untitled> (Our friends the Theosophists...)
...
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 452, April 22, 1881, pp. 183-84