Hindu Psychology
Sir,—A letter addressed to the Banner of Light, by Mr. J. M. Peebles, contains so many blunders and misstatements that I beg to be allowed to point them out. I have no acquaintance with the gentleman at all, nor have I any but a very superficial knowledge of the phenomena of Spiritualism, but I was born in Madras, and lived there a long time, as have almost all my relatives, and I ought to know something about the Hindus. I have no hesitation in affirming that the letter in question bears intrinsic marks of its writer having been egregiously imposed upon in several important particulars. There are so many “Old Indians” in London, that I have wondered that no one has already done what I am now doing.
In brief, Dr. Peebles makes the following assertions:—1. That he has spent day after day with Hindu Pandits and Shastrys, with the Brahmans and Sivaitas. 2. That he has seen their mediums, their devil-priests, and their Guros. 3. That he has seen the media entranced, and seen them cast out demons. 4. That he has procured, not only their camphor mixture, but other incense preparations, as well as the genuine “Soma-juice” plant. 5. That all Hindus, except atheistic freethinkers, are Spiritualists. 6. That he has been let into the houses, the temples, and the confidence of the higher classes of Hindus.
I affirm, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that each and all of these assertions are without warrant of fact.
To pass over the imaginary distinctions between Pandits and Shastrys, and Brahmans and Sivaitas, I will say that Mr. Peebles cannot have seen their mediums, for they have none, in the European sense of the word. Their psychological phenomena are not produced as are those of the western circles, and they have no devil-priests, though the missionaries profess to entertain some delusion to the effect that there are such creatures. Mr. Peebles cannot possibly have seen the media entranced, since there are none to entrance, the Fakirs and wonderworking Gurus differing with mediums in every particular, and requiring no conditions. Likewise, it is palpable nonsense to say that mediums cast out demons, as mediums are generally passive, and can have no such power. The only camphor mixture Mr. Peebles could have procured must have been some preparation according to the British Pharmacopoeia, as a preventive of cholera, and that is certainly not an incense preparation. What is the marvel in his seeing the “soma-juice” plant? That is common enough, but the priests alone have the secret of the preparation of the Soma, nor is it likely that, after keeping the secret for centuries, they would impart it to a casual wayfarer. I am afraid it was a “plant” indeed, and that our friend was sadly imposed upon. No Hindu is a Spiritualist. The Hindus undoubtedly believe in elemental spirits (the Pays and Pesahsays) having their habitations in the air, the water, the fire, in rocks and trees, in the clouds, the rain, the dew, in mines and caverns, but their belief in the transmigration of the souls of the wicked (or what the occultists call elementary spirits), and of the continued existence of these impure spirits in material forms, as insects and animals of lower or higher degrees of intelligence, effectually precludes any credence on their part in the possibility of the return, in objective forms of the disembodied spirits of those who have here led good and pure lives. These, they believe, go to higher celestial regions, unfettered by any tie to earth, and gradually lose their objective forms the nearer they approach the abode of final bliss, the sublime Nirvana, or the Brahminical Moksha. Any one who has ever been in India knows how preposterous is the claim of Mr. Peebles to having penetrated into the homes, or temples, or the confidence of the Hindus. That he may have entered the guest chambers or the outer courts of their habitations, or the vestibules of their temples, is likely enough; so have I, and so have thousands of other Europeans; but that is a very different thing from being admitted to the penetralia, either domestic or sacred. No, unless to initiates, who of European blood are very few and far between—so few, that the very fact of any having acquired the real secrets is by most, even well-informed persons, considered mythical—the esoterism of Hinduism is sealed and impenetrable. The Hindus are known as the most polite of all the Eastern nations, so proverbial for their natural courtesy, and their higher classes certainly deserve all that Mr. Peebles can say of their gentlemanly bearing. But courtesy is not confidence, and they do not wear their hearts on their sleeves.
In another letter, republished in your esteemed paper of October 19th, I find Mr. Peebles quite astonished at finding in a Buddhist Pungui, of Colombo, his own “match in metaphysics.” Every scientist who has studied the several philosophies of India on their native soil, if to any degree honest and fair, has had to confess that the ablest European metaphysicians can hardly follow the extraordinary subtlety of the Hindu mind; therefore the amazement expressed by this American traveller is calculated to rather amuse people born in India, and others who have lived among the Hindus. Nor can I, indeed, find it possible to anticipate any great benefit to the Buddhist theologians from Mr. Peeble’s generous distribution in their Colombo college of “Shaker and Spiritualist tracts.” The offer was, no doubt, well intended, but I must still believe that almost any Buddhist theologian will always be found more than a match for the most astute Christian missionary.
I consider that such careless, or too credulous and over-enthusiastic statements as these of Mr. Peebles, can only tend to confuse the minds of Spiritualists about Indian psychological science, and to strengthen the hands of their antagonists.
Editor of “The American Builder,” and late of the Bank of Madras.
New York, November 9th, 1877.
Mr. J. M. Peebles in Ceylon
Mr. J. M. Peebles, in the course of a letter to Mr. Luther Colby, of Boston, U.S., says:—
I think that yesterday was the most interesting day of my life, and for this reason: I spent a good portion of it at the Buddhist College—in the suburbs of Columbi, a city of 130,000—conversing and debating with the Buddhist priests. There were present the High Priest, and President of the College, sixty priests in their yellow robes, and twenty-five or thirty young laymen, studying for the priesthood. Some of these priests spoke English well. I had with me two interpreters, one of whom had been in the employment of the English Government. On very many points Buddhism and Spiritualism are in perfect harmony. They all believe in the fact of spirit-intercourse; they cast out demons as did Jesus; believe in salvation by merit, and merit alone; believe in the re-births or reincarnations of human beings till their errors or sins are all atoned for, and they believe in Nirvana—final absorption. On this, and the origin of the soul, and the mental constitution of the soul, we had a warm controversy. I can only say here that I found my match in metaphysics. Only think, when I was arguing that, soul was force, this priest pushed under my face Dr. Lewis Buchner’s work on Matter and Force. These priests have translated Bishop Colenso’s Work on the Pentateuch into their native language, the Singahlese. Recently one of these priests, the Rev. Mohattiwattey Goonananda, held a two days’, public discussion with the Methodist missionaries, and by common consent gained the victory. The Rev. Mr. Bacon, an English clergyman, engaged as a professor in St. Thomas College, Columbi, said that ((these Wesleyans were not scholarly enough to meet the Buddhists in debate; only the most clever men should be sent here as missionaries.” I gave these priests, upon leaving them, some forty or fifty Spiritualist and Shaker tracts, to aid them in their debates with the sectarian Christians. Oh, how much good I could do toward the downfall of bigotry and the enlightenment of the whole world, if I only had the funds.
Columbi, Ceylon, Aug. 12th, 1877.
The Psychology of the Buddhists
Buddhism was a protest against Brahmanism. If the priestcraft had not been predominant, the system of caste, which was originally on the principle of the division of labour, had not grown into a social evil; and if the consumption of animal food and intoxicating drinks had not increased, it is doubtful whether Buddhism had been conceived, and matured as a creed. It took admirably, because the popular mind had been debased morally and socially, and a reaction was called for. The first thought of those who were the primitive Buddhists was how to effect the annihilation of pain. Buddhists did not originally believe in God, nor in the devil; but in Karma (merit and demerit) giving birth to new existence. They admitted, however, that intelligence “subsisted as self, and in that view only, it was (Atma) self or soul.” There are other proofs of its virtual recognition of the soul. Its leading doctrine was to rise above Upadana, i.e., attachment to sensuous objects. Its conception of heaven was that it consisted of two conditions, viz., Rupa Loka, or beings of form, and Arupa Loka, beings of no form, or spiritual beings. In this heaven there is no material reward, but ecstasy of real existence. This is the heaven for those who arrive at Nirvana. In the Dhamapada the word immortality occurs. There is also mention of “divine beings.”
There is very little doubt that Buddhism grew of the Sankhya philosophy. One similarity is that both were originally atheistical. Both aimed at emancipating the soul from earthly bondage, and arriving at the spiritual life. The modus operandi for the attainment of this object, both in Buddhism and Sankhya, are the same, viz., the practice of yoge, or intense contemplation. The Buddhists, like the <... continues on page 4-97 >
* See The Psychology'' ''of the Aryas,'' By the same author.
Editor's notes
- ↑ Hindu Psychology by O'Grady W.L.D., London Spiritualist, No. 274, November 23, 1877, pp. 251-2. HPB's comment in blue pencil is mostly lost (cutted off)
- ↑ Mr. J. M. Peebles in Ceylon by unknown author, London Spiritualist, No. 269, October 19, 1877, p. 185
- ↑ The Psychology of the Buddhists by Baboo Peary Chand Mittra, London Spiritualist, No. 262, August 31, 1877, pp. 103-4
London Spiritualist, No. 274, November 23, 1877, pp. 251-2
London Spiritualist, No. 269, October 19, 1877, p. 185
London Spiritualist, No. 262, August 31, 1877, pp. 103-4