 |
vol. title: vol. period: 1882 pages in vol.: 229 |
< On “The Philosophy of Immortality,” Theosophy, Böhme, Indian Philosophy, Materialisation, Conditional Immortality. (continued from page 13-79) >
philosophy; but I believe in the “Anima Mundi” as the living, conscious spirit of the Earth, in whom we subordinate spirits are, even as the cell-souls are in us; then the Planets appear to be in the Sun Spirit; and so on till you arrive at the Supreme. All is in all, and one conscious sphere within another: there is a hierarchy. On this I have written more fully elsewhere. Still I am conscious that I am only a poet with metaphysical bias, not a systematiser in metaphysical philosophy. I have indeed best expressed my philosophy in “De Profundis” and other poems of the “Little Child’s Monument,” and “the House of Ravensburg.”
On the whole, then, I incline to the theory of spiritist phenomena held by “M. A. Oxon,” Mr. W. H. Harrison, and the majority of Spiritualists. Whether the Spirits chiefly concerned are good or evil, or neither, is a difficult question, and I have ventured to warn Spiritists not to take the phenomena for a new religion, only as a stepping-stone to one; for religion, “the Kingdom of God,” must be within, not in external appearances, however curious, miraculous, and abnormal, nor even in revelations from the Spirit-world, except so far as these may be verified by the inward light, which is the Spirit of God in each, and all. “Other foundation can no man,” angel, or devil, “lay than that is laid,” and revealed by Jesus Christ, which is the essential Divine Humanity of self-suppressing Love—that “God may be All in All,” the one All being for ever retained in the other All.
The only point touched upon in your notice in which perhaps my thought is not quite adequately represented, is materialisation phenomena. What is said of my theory is so far true, but the more essential part of it seems omitted, which is briefly this—the Spirits acting upon us, and in concert with us, so as to produce the material phenomenon, which we name our body, in our consciousness, by virtue of the constitution of our perceiving faculty, may themselves regard their face and aspect of the phenomenon as their own body; to us the phenomenon is our body, because we (as supraconscious, and as conscious in earth-life now) are concerned in giving it this particular appearance and function, according to our present terrene manner of perceiving; but without the assistance, conscious and unconscious, of other intelligences, we could neither perceive nor think; and so the “material,” or external result of their energising with us may to us be our body (and the world through that), but to them at the same moment their body and their world, represented to them according to their constitution. Now, could we place ourselves at their point of view, we should behold their aspect of the phenomenal body, and “the body” to us would no longer be “terrestrial,” but (possibly) “ethereal.” Reverse the conditions, and assume that some of these intelligences are in close connection with us, of which fact (though usually they may be ignorant of it), under certain circumstances they may become aware; then (assisted probably by memory of their own terrestrial life) they may be able to borrow our terrene manner of apprehending, which is what “borrowing nervous or vital force from the medium, and circle” really amounts to, and so the bodily phenomenon alters from what it was to them, to what it is to us. Their body thus changes (in accordance with its change of spheres) to a solid body with various organs and members, which is the part of my theory “C. C. M.” has so well expounded (and pertinently illustrated from Proclus), becoming palpable to our similar bodily senses. So also, I have suggested, may be explained the phenomena of obsession, &c. &c. In clairvoyance (as in dreams), on the contrary, the seer appears to take on other-world conditions of knowledge and perception. If the communicating intelligences were simulacra, as Theosophists contend, they would surely have no spontaneity, could not respond (however inaptly and lamely) to questions put; they would want that unity of apperception, which they assuredly shew; if they were mere memories, they would require to be animated by some living and thinking intelligence. Besides, according to me, if they were memories, this would imply the presence of the person remembered, besides the presence of the rememberer. Images in an ether out of consciousness, as an idealist, I repudiate; but if they be memories in the “world-consciousness,” or any other, they at least imply the living energy of that self-identifying unity, or some other; but this theory does not admit any such thing. That the subconscious souls in us should hang about out of us undominated by any other central unit of self-identifying consciousness, but simulating us, as suggested by “C. C. M.,” to me appears a very unthinkable conception; is it not more probable that they share our destiny, since they must be integrally one with us?
I would add that of course any sincere student must rejoice to find the same grand fundamental truths presented in the Indian, as are presented in other true and deep philosophies. The only question that arises is concerning the detailed development of these. But the universal Spirit of Humanity, the Word, the Christ, enlightens and reveals Himself to all, whether in the East or West; even our sad temporary aberrations called agnostic and materialist, born of too exclusive a devotion to physical science (so valuable in its place!) have their own position and function in the grand organism of thought.
One word more. It is not impossible, as I have said in my book, that the intelligences manifesting at séances may, as some Theosophists suppose, be of the nature of goblins, elves, Pucks, “elementals,” not human—though I do not think it probable, unless fairies be, as some contend, lapsed human souls. One thing I hold to be impossible, thank God! that they should be human persons who have lost their Trinity, to use the peculiar language of Theosophy, because the survival of any human qualities whatever, whether memory, perception, or understanding, were out of the question even for an instant without the substantial Spirit, not “overshadowing,” but underlying and constituting them, if only as function of unity in difference. It is in and by them, as they are in and by it. But if the former alternative, that these intelligences are not human, be a possible one, then it is important to note that though there may be indirect, there is no direct, proof of our immortality, afforded by the phenomena of Spiritism.
The proof would come to this, that since intelligences may evidently exist and act without our normal brains and bodies, the presumption of sense that our present solid brains and bodies are necessary to our survival is not justified. Still, is it well for Spiritists to trust solely to what may thus prove a broken reed?
I only deprecate their throwing over all appeal to moral, spiritual, and philosophical proofs, and all appeal to revealed religion—to Christianity,—leaning exclusively on these external phenomena, and the inferences deducible from them, which appear so very different to different minds, even among those who believe the phenomena genuine and abnormal. All this may be the medium himself infinitely subdivided, some theosophical Spiritists will tell them—and if so, where are we? In my book I have argued against this and similar theories, as well as against the scientific one of “unconscious cerebration;” but still there is division in the camp, even concerning that very elementary article of the creed, which Spiritism was supposed to prove, if it proved nothing further. Indeed, Theosophists believe in the immortality of a very select few, though “simulacra” of the majority may have leave to play about, and confuse us for a little while after death. One would be tempted to call this system Neo-Calvinism, were we not assured that Hindoos, and all sorts of “occult,” though distinguished people, have believed in it: perhaps, therefore, it might be better to term it Primitive Calvinism—there is Primitive Methodism. Who is to be found worthy of so distinguished an honour as immortality, while the vast majority of men and women, and all young children, are only fit to die in the nearest ditch, and be snuffed out for ever? At what point of “adeptship” does “the Spirit” come in, or rather “over,” and confer so tremendous a gift? Nay, by fine gradations the saint shades off into the sinner, and the one is very apt to become the other. There is no impassable gulf between the worm, the archangel, and the devil. Goethe told Eckermann that men of culture only, and not Philistines, were immortal; but then he was probably chaffing his Boswell, whereas Theosophists, and the “conditional immortality” Christians, appear to be in earnest.
Should not these phenomena, however, be used rather as valuable allies, as crutches of a halting hope, as glasses for a feeble faith, than as superseding faith and reason altogether?
I have, since commencing my remarks, read another very kind notice of my book by “M.A. (Oxon.)”
Roden Noel.
<Untitled> (Heaven and Hell are not localities, but states...)
Heaven and Hell are not localities, but states, which we carry within us; and as for the eternity of suffering, only unthinking theologians believe in such a paradoxical theory, forgetting what is said in Holy Writ, that “the wrath of God does not last for ever.” The idea of infinite punishment is not consistent with the mercy, the wisdom, or the prescience of God. We, the children of a loving Father, can be but destined to inherit His eternal love. A Greek word in the Bible being translated in the sense of everlasting, instead of its true meaning long lasting, has been the cause of that serious misapprehension.—
Damiani.
Editor's notes
- ↑ Heaven and Hell are not localities, but states... by unknown author (signed as Damiani), Light, v. 2, No. 67, April 15, 1882, p. 176
Sources
-
Light, v. 2, No. 67, April 15, 1882, p. 176