Theosophy
Sir,—At the risk of departing somewhat from the stereotyped formula of commencing a letter with praise, let me take advantage of the permission you give that opinions may be uttered in your journal, which shall be diametrically opposed to those of yourself and readers- The perfect fairness under which the Spiritualist has always been conducted, and the patience with which persons of opposite views are tolerated, embolden me to consider what reply could be given to the three questions considered in your last issue:—1. “What proof have (the Theosophists) of the alleged conditional immortality of man?” The answer to this is that they have never asserted such a doctrine. The substitution of the word “conditional” for the term “potential” used by the Theosophists, is an alteration of terms which may blind English readers to the real significance of their propositions. 2. “What proof (have they) of the existence of sub-human spirits?” Just so much as any one else; and as much evidence as can be gathered from the printed recitals of the ordinary seances for physical manifestations.
3. The next question is more serious: “What proof (have they) that men by will-bower can produce any of the manifestations called spiritual?” In reply to this, I shall be very happy to take up the gauntlet, if interrogated by any member of the Theosophical Society. An organisation the members of whom live apart, and have doubtless their own methods of communication, may be able to test scientifically any evidence which the professional scientific man—who would not willingly commit himself to a hasty or inaccurate statement of. fact—lays before it. The general public are, no doubt, very much prepared to accept with avidity any tale of wonder, but those persons who do not
Wear their heart upon their sleeve, |
have need alike to remember the precept of St. Polycarp respecting the people, “Illos vero indignos puto, quibus rationem reddam,” and the advice of Goethe:—
Das Beste, was du wissen kannst |
As the Theosophical society has never intruded itself on our notice, it might be not less cautious than polite to refrain from offering tests or demanding proofs from those who have not asked our advice, and do not value it.
Inside Spiritualism, of course, any body may offer any test which pleases him, or satisfies those near him to his own series of phenomena, and as in the case of the Femme Barbue, materialised spirits must be tested in a way foreign certainly to the method of the Theosophists. In the “gay days of wickedness and wit” of the French second empire, I think I remember a comic song which exactly gives the programme for which materialised spirits crave, and in the production of which Theosophists cannot help them:—
Entrez dans mon etablissement, |
To one who views the statements made by the Theosophists from the point of view of anthropological science, I am struck with the extreme probability of their opinions. That persons have existed, whether in Thibet, or the Lebanon hills, in the hidden mysteries of Egypt, or contemplating the altars of Trimurti-like beings who once were gods, either outside the adytum of the old Cabeiri of Samotraki, or near the temple of Hagia Kim at Malta, who had the literary faculty of comprehending what they saw, and remembering what was told them, appears not to be too improbable a supposition. I hope that we shall all be large-hearted enough to accept the theory that the wise men of the past, though they did not live in the age of cheap telephones, knew somewhat, and that occasional glimpses of that somewhat are cognisable and appreciable by ordinary students of history. If the teachers of the Theosophical Society cannot or will not give us ghosts a volonte, I hope that they will, at least, be let alone to follow out a system of philosophical investigation for the method of which they are alone responsible to their own members, and for the results of which those who wish to know anything may become initiated by the ordinary channels of work which have been known for ages by those who are teachers in metaphysic, as in the history of the regions of the East.
[1. On page 255 of The Spiritualist, Vol. XI., Col. Olcott says that a man,“having been completely debased on earth, he sinks deeper and deeper into matter, and is annihilated.” Thus it is alleged that, as the effect of conditions, man may lose his immortality. 2. We have attended more seances, probably, than anybody in this country not a medium, and are not able to demonstrate that sub-human spirits produce some of the phenomena. 3. Yes. Where is the proof? If it gives offence to Theosophists to be asked for proofs or facts, let it be so stated, and the public will take no further interest in a matter presented to them merely in the form of unproved assertions.— Ed
<Untitled> (I have been, for the first time in my life)
Sir,—I have been, for the first time in my life, I believe, accused, in print, of inexcusable epithets, such as “uncharitable,” “self-righteous,” &c., for having thus demurred to certain opinions of the Theosophists, which, to quote a leader in The Spiritualist of March 1st, are “Speculations and doctrines set forth at great length without an atom of experimental or produced evidence in their support,” and wherein, “much is said about unfortunate human beings who have ‘lost their trinity, and who are perishable;’” doctrine swhich, I must repeat, strike uncharitably on the well-being of humanity, in the name of religion, and the Darwinian theory of “Natural Selection.” Well, I must acknowledge that commination without proof or authority is apt to breed counter-blasts; and syllabuses from self-elected synods are wont to produce protest in the name of humanity.
But the head and front of my offending is that I accuse Colonel Olcott of alleging that, “The astral man or double, or soul, has lost its divine νους,” and that, consequently, as he also says, “mediumistic physical phenomena are not produced by pure spirits, but by” souls embodied or disembodied, that, ergo, physical mediums have, according to Colonel Olcott, lost their divine spirit, their trinity in short. And for this Mr. Massey expects me to apologise; but this I cannot do to Mr. Massey until he proves that I am wrong, which he has not yet done; but glad should I be, for the sake of the charity of the Theosophists, if I could do so, and I only wish that Colonel Olcott himself would prove the groundlessness of the charge, for it is, indeed, a dreadful one, on living men. Mr. Massey asks me—“Where, in any communication of either Madame Blavatsky or Colonel Olcott, does ‘M.A., Cantab.,’ find the proposition, or anything like, or leading to, or possibly involving the proposition that ‘the astral man, or double, or soul,’ is ‘a soul that has lost its divine νους’?” Why, here; where Colonel Olcott shows he has lost it by the separation of soul and spirit for an incalculable length of time. I acknowledge he makes an exception in the case of an amiable, virtuous young lady, who was a powerful physical medium; but with this exception, he appears to me to doom all physical mediums to the category of astral men, mere material souls, who, during life, are separated from their divine spirit, or who have lost it altogether, and will be “annihilated.” I regret to have to repeat what I have said before, but I do so in justice to myself and my readers. In The Spiritualist of December 7th, Colonel Olcott says: “To us man is a trinity, not a duality; in short, we accept the philosophy, which is the fundamental doctrine of all Oriental systems, and equally the basis of the Greek, Roman, and other derivatives. Inside the physical body, and permeating it, is an astral body, or soul, and these two are overshadowed (illuminated and spiritualised) by a third—the divine, immortal spirit, the νους, the ruach.” In all the above I agree with Colonel Olcott, but he adds: “We believe that the man of flesh dies, decays, and goes to the crucible of evolution, to be worked over and over again; that the astral man (or double or soul), freed from physical imprisonment, is followed by the consequences of his earthly deeds, thoughts, and desires. He (the astral man or soul) either becomes purged of the last traces of earthly grossness, and finally, after an incalculable lapse of time, is joined (rejoined) to his divine spirit, and lives for ever as an entity, or, having been completely debased on earth, he (the astral man) sinks deeper and deeper into matter, and is annihilated. Usually the separation of soul and spirit occurs before the bodily death. This is the rule, but still there are exceptions. The soul, you perceive, we regard as matter, though exceedingly sublimated, and as completely subject to the laws of matter as the physical body itself.” Now, I will ask any candid reader whether Colonel Olcott does not here assume that the astral man or soul, mere matter, is separated from the divine νους for an incalculable length of time, and so lost to it for that period? And yet Mr. Massey asks: “Where does M.A., Cantab., find the proposition that the astral man, or double, or soul, is a soul that has lost its divine νους?” It is mere hair-splitting, and a play upon words, to make a distinction between the soul being separated from the divine spirit for an incalculable length of time, till it find it again; and the soul being lost to the divine spirit for an incalculable length of time, till it find it again. If I am separated from my purse for a long time, with all its unpleasant consequences, though I find it again intact, it will be very little comfort to say that it was not lost, only separated from me. It was as good as lost for a long time, and so at any rate is the soul, according to Colonel Olcott.
Mr. Massey says that Madame Blavatsky has defined the “astral man” in The Spiritualist oi February 8th; and deprecates my want of care in informing myself of her opinions on that point. Well, I read it, but the letter signed “Scrutator” was sent to the publisher before Madame Blavatsky’s letter appeared, and what I then wrote and am now writing about, is Colonel Olcott’s opinion, not Madame Blavatsky’s; if they differ on this subject, also, it will be no novelty. But if I had not read it there was no obligation that I should have done so. It is just possible to have too much, even of a good thing; and I do not profess to be above being led away by fascination; so I have not read her book. I could even commiserate Mr. Massey, who has read Madame Blavatsky, when he tells us that he is “under a sort of compulsion to put forward opinions which ‘Scrutator’ dislikes,” did I not know that the chosen few are to be envied, not pitied. I am, however, curious concerning this hint about compulsion. Then there really are some of these despised “controls” somewhere among the occultists, either in the flesh or out of it, as is the case with the poor Spiritualists. I had thought occultism was only a case of adepts, with elementals entirely under their thumbs; but, then, who knows who is as yet an adept? Perhaps only the adepts of the inner ring are the uncontrolled. Is there no right of private judgment for grown men who are not yet adepts? And this brings me back to my alleged carelessness in not having read Madame Blavatsky’s article more attentively. But, after all, are we to throw ourselves unarmed into the enemy’s arms? Is there not sometimes wisdom in refusing to hear the voice of the charmer, charm he ever so wisely? Wise men have been sometimes made slaves, even when they thought they had slaves at their feet; and I desire to retain, in its entirety, my love for all mankind. Am I to seek out, for instance, certain winning ways and discourses of a lady to be found in a certain forest? Well! talk of thraldom of strong men! No Rosalind in the forest of Ardennes had a greater power over her Orlando. A humble poet once sang
I would not lead a—life |
<... continues on page 4-246 >
Editor's notes
London Spiritualist, No. 289, March 8, 1878, p. 117