< Theosophists on Their Defence (continued from page 4-229) >
that from the glass-house in which Theosophy dwells, it is dangerous to throw stones.
Instead of all this crude speculation, these modifying particles, “it is likely,” “perhaps,” and so forth; instead of this semi-theological theorising as to the future, this shuddering horror of “disturbing the manes of the dead” (who desires to do anything of the kind?) we desiderate a reverse process. We would proceed from facts to theories; not assign theories as a reason for ignoring facts. I have had much, and desire to have more experience with doppels, or, as I call them, spirits; and from them, and from observation of their acts and words, I have arrived at conclusions the reverse of some—not by any means of all—that Theosophy propounds. I start from my facts, and when in doubt do not spin a theory, but prefer to wait, or possibly to ask.
“The true scientist is always a Theosophist first of all,” says Professor Wilder. One is tempted to wish that the proposition could read the other way, and that the Theosophist were a Scientist so far as to use the scientific method of deduction. But what is Theosophy? Then I come with my definitions again. I read Miss Kislingbury’s paper with open eyes, for I found it started with the question, What is Theosophy? (p. 76), and was headed, Theosophy Simplified. But, alas! my hopes were blighted; for I found no answer to the question, and the simplification consisted in leaving out the difficulties. Half-a-dozen answers might very easily be given to the question by six different readers of the late correspondence; and it is of that variety of statement that one has a fair right to complain. As each little Bethel is erected on a text, ignoring inconvenient contradictions in the other inspired writers, so a number of rival societies might be founded for eternal wrangling on the dicta of the Theosophists.
I fear that I must omit a great part of what I should like to say. But I again protest that definitions must be laid down before any profitable argument can be had. For instance, I feel sure that I mean by Spiritualism something very different from what my Transatlantic friends mean, while I can and do accept as mediums what Madame Blavatsky says are “not mediums . . . but incarnate illuminated souls, working consciously in collaboration with pure disembodied human and unembodied planetary spirits for the elevation and spiritualisation of mankind.” That is pretty much what I mean by the highest form of mediumship.
When they speak of the dangers of mediumship I can follow them but I turn aside when they speak so glowingly of the duty of cultivating the powers of one’s own spirit as being free from all danger. I recognise the ditty.
“I know my soul hath power to know all things, |
I recognise my potencies, but I am by no means sure that the Theosophist recipe for developing them is one that may be safely followed. I speak with reserve, but, having seen both, I tried both. I am disposed to say that experiments with one’s own spirit, in the way of cultivation of its latent power in abnormal directions, are both dangerous and, in the pressure of daily work, impossible, and that in a far greater degree than the practice of mediumship under properly guarded conditions. But, of all this, each must judge for himself. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is not plucked without much trouble and some risk, if it be only the risk of having one’s eyes opened so as to know one’s own mental and spiritual nakedness.
Each, I say, must decide for himself in a matter that concerns himself. I have no quarrel with all the theories I have lately read beyond this: that I see no beauty in them that I should abandon for any of them what to me is a sublimer faith and a more assured belief. I see points in all that I can accept and agree with, and I have the less difficulty in doing so, that they already exist in my own system. I know it is very easy to point the finger of scorn at the blots that defile what is popularly known as Spiritualism. That is a cheap and easy method. The question with me is not the least affected by any such course of argument, which I put aside as I do Maskelyne’s assaults on the phenomena, which I know really to exist. I take a higher ground, and here I find myself in sympathy with one who, in this matter, I should think, would be accepted by us all as speaking words of truth and soberness. I quote from the Journal of June 8, 1877:—“Spiritualism differs from mere psychology in this, that it is a religion as well as a science, and that, in proportion as Spiritualists forget this they are helping to weaken its influence as a moral regenerator.... If we encourage what I must call a growing affectation of unbelief in our own facts, and are continually wasting our strength in endless disputations on points about which no real Spiritualist feels any doubt, we shall end by finding ourselves unable to meet the attacks of outsiders, or to impress them with the importance and beauty of our subject. If Spiritualism is worth having, it is worth holding fast; and we should endeavour to put it forward in its best aspects, and not as though we had no longer any faith in that which we profess to advocate.”
The writer is Miss Kislingbury; and I am glad to find my-self in entire accord with her sentiments. They find indeed anew appropriateness now which may excuse my reproducing them; and they express, in terms of admirable clearness, a duty which, as “a real Spiritualist,” I am profoundly impressed with, that of “holding fast” to Spiritualism and endeavouring “to put it forward in its best aspects.”
And in so doing, it is something more than a passing satisfaction to feel assured that within the ranks of those called Spiritualists there is a large body of strenuous and earnest souls whose sympathies are deep and rooted, and whose divergences lie on the surface, and so are plain for men to see; while their real and abiding faith rests deep down below these superficial ripples, unmoved in its serenity by the winds of controversy and disputation.
At no time, I firmly believe, were there more such amongst us. At no time, I am fully sure, has their presence been more needed. Dr. Wyld has expressed a fear that discussions such as these may split us into two camps. I, on the contrary, sincerely hope that the very fact that so many can be found whose inner and real agreement will stand the shock of external and superficial difference is a hopeful indication that we may one day realise the prayer of the Master for his children—that they all may he one.
Writing Mediumship in Relation to Spirit Identity
“The individual who first perceives a new fact, puts himself in advance of, and more or less in antagonism with, others. If his perception be true, but not accepted, it is not his fault that “he be right and everybody else wrong.” Such a state of things has happened more than once in the history of science, but it. is happily transitory; the many moving one-ward, the one onward.”—Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., p. 165.
Of late there has been much examination and discussion amongst us of new theories and possible new explanations in regard to what we have known as spiritual manifestations, and some of us have shown no little alarm, lest in so examining and discussing, we should lose our hold on views hitherto most generally received, and which are more or less dear to the hearts of us all. For myself, I consider it of such supreme importance that we should arrive at right conclusions in these matters, that I shall not allow myself to be driven back or frightened away from due examination of every theory, new and old, which may or can be presented to us, in explanation of the strange things occurring in our midst, and for a true and faithful account of which the world will hold us Spiritualists to a certain extent responsible. I in- tend, therefore, to go on exercising full freedom of inquiry, looking carefully all round both facts and theories, turning them over, and handling them familiarly, until I get right into <... continues on page 4-231 >
Editor's notes
- ↑ Writing Mediumship in Relation to Spirit Identity by Kislingbury, Emily, London Spiritualist, No. 288, March 1, 1878, pp. 99-101
London Spiritualist, No. 288, March 1, 1878, pp. 99-101