HPB-SB-7-21

T i

vol. 7, p. 21

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

vol. 7 (March-September 1878)

Legend

SBT, DT

• HPB note
• HPB highlighted
• HPB underlined
• HPB crossed out
• <Editors note>
• <Archivist note>
• Lost or unclear
• Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

< "Isis Unveiled" and Theosophy (continued from page 7-20) >

maniere de voir with us. Those who study Spiritualism are no babes, and do not want any milk. If Madame Blavatsky can tell me why the egg of a bird, boiled under certain circumstances, cannot become hard, or by what process an idiot can be made, or by what reason, under different circumstances (she is as strong as a man, therefore I have no reason not to say what I wish), the sex of an unborn child may be changed, ad libitum, I will answer her, but not with elementaries.

Madame Blavatsky is a woman. I have the greatest respect for her personally, but ... the rest may be guessed. Qui sine peccato est vestrum primus in illam lapidem mittat.

Alpha (*)

The Hague, Holland.

(*) Now, what may be the meaning in brief of this lengthy trash? H.P.B.

Alpha?

<Untitled> (In your number of March 8th, page 115)

Sir,—In your number of March 8th, page 115, Mrs. Showers kindly exhorts “Mr. O’Sullivan, and others, who are bewailing their approaching bereavement, to be of good heart!”—because she does not believe a bit in Madame Blavatsky’s intention of returning (now that she has accomplished her “mission” of publishing her book, and laying the foundations of her school of Occidental Buddhism) to her beloved Orient again, never more to quit it, nor to be looked upon by European or American eyes, or to be listened to by our ears.

Will Mrs. Showers allow me to say that, while fully appreciating the strong intellectuality of her style of writing, I am not aware of having expressed any such bewailing an approaching bereavement, nor uttered any voice of wailing at all.

I certainly find more points of concurrence and sympathy with ideas indicated by Mrs. Showers—a Spiritualist, like myself, and, like myself, neither a Buddhist nor a Theosophist, but a simple and humble, however unworthy (so far as regards myself), Christian—than I do with what I understand of the views of Madame Blavatsky or Colonel Olcott. Having had the honour and pleasure of seeing somewhat of the latter two remarkable persons in New York—not as a disciple, but as an observer and as a friend—I simply related some of the extraordinary phenomena I witnessed in Madame Blavatsky’s presence, and expressed my perfect conviction of the sincerity, the honesty, and the elevation of character alike of her and of Colonel Olcott. That conviction remains fixed and deep-rooted in my mind.

Mrs. Showers seems to have no faith in that lady’s pretension of having ever been in the Far East at all (she told me that she had spent the best part of her life, thirty years, in the very heart of it), but to assume that she has culled the materials of her two huge volumes out of other people’s books. I will not call this judgment uncharitable, since it is that of a lady, and that lady, Mrs. Showers; but I may be allowed to deem it a little precipitate, and thereby unjust. I used to see the proof sheets of the earlier pages passing under the hands of Colonel Olcott and Mrs. Blavatsky, and I perfectly remember their having told me that the work was to consist mainly, not of her own statements of what she had seen and known, but of the concurrent and confirmatory testimony of other travellers and authors. I have not yet seen her work, but I know, both from her and from Colonel Olcott, that this is the point of view from which it should be understood and judged.

Let me beg Mrs. Showers to reconsider her judgment about it by the light of that idea of its purposes and meaning. At the same time, Madame Blavatsky told me she had seen all those things, and much more, but that she meant to collect the independent, various and published, testimony of what others had seen, rather than to present only her own.

Mrs. Showers declines to believe in her intended early return to her beloved Orient. I can only say that she expressed to me that purpose, and that earnest longing, in the strongest manner. Nor have I the slightest doubt of its sincerity. I only alluded to the fact, without “bewailing” anything. If Mrs. Showers should declare to me any strong and earnest purpose, dependent solely on our own will and desire, the last thing I shall dream of doing will be to doubt her sincerity. Is she not a trifle rash in disbelieving that of a lady wholly unknown to her, but who is undeniably a woman of high intellectuality and vast and varied learning, as well as one who (apart from marvelous abnormal or medial power) always awakens an extraordinary degree of respect and confidence in those who approach her? And amongst those there are certainly some who, with the aid of personal acquaintance and intercourse, are at least as favourably situated for the formation of a right judgment of her as can be one who views her only across an oceanic distance of three thousand miles.

I asked Madame Blavatsky whether she meant to return to her antipodal Thibet, by going east or west—by way of Europe or that of California. She did not know. “And when you get there, what will you do?” “Oh, I shall end my life in a lamasery.” That is to sayshe would become a sort of Buddhist nun, or “adept” priestess— which it is my belief that she is already. If she goes by way of England, I hope Mrs. Showers will make her acquaintance, and then, I think, she will be the first to wish to unwrite some part of her letter which has suggested this most respectful reply from one who is no more a disciple of Madame Blavatsky than is Mrs. Showers herself.

J. L. O’Sullivan.

Paris, March 9.

<Untitled> (I have read with much regret...)

Sir,—I have read with much regret in your last issue the communication signed by Mrs. Showers. I am not a member of the Theosophical Society, and I have not the honour of Madame Blavatsky’s acquaintance, but I certainly should not have thought that a lady whose learning and ability have commanded the respectful attention of “M.A., Oxon.,” and who has been claimed as a friend by Miss Emily Kislingbury, would have met with what I must term the uncalled-for abuse with which Mrs, Showers has seen fit to assail her. Your correspondent has hastened into print before, according to her own statement, she has even taken the trouble to read through Madame Blavatsky’s work, and, judging from some of the remarks she makes in the course of her letter, it appears to me that her present fitness to pronounce an opinion on the subjects treated therein is open to question. When Mrs. Showers has attained some little knowledge of the ancient astronomical religion, which will enable her to apply to it some other term than “The foul Osiris worship of Egypt,” and when she is able to perceive that though it is perfectly true that the temples of Karnac and Luxor are in ruins, it does not necessarily follow that the knowledge once imparted in those temples is not still in the possession of those who are found worthy to receive it, or that “Astrologer, and prophet, and magician, passed away forever long centuries ago,” she will, I think, be prepared to attach a proper value to Isis Unveiled, and to appreciate the knowledge and research which have been employed in its compilation. With regard to the emblems of the much misunderstood phallic worship alluded to by Mrs. Showers, I may state for her information that they are to be found decorating nearly every church in the kingdom, and may easily be recognised by any person who has the smallest knowledge of the subject.

R. Palmer Thomas.

London, March 9th, 1878.

<Untitled> (Instead of Spiritualists going off...)

Sir,—Instead of Spiritualists going off into discussions with the Theosophists as to the probability or improbability of “elementaries,” “elementals,” and “lost souls,” would it not be better to keep to the primal and cardinal fact, and either establish or disestablish it? The Spiritualist says, he (the Spiritualist) is only the clay in the hands of the potter, spirit; but the Theosophist says, he (the Theosophist) is the potter, and the spirit is the clay. Now, Spiritualists are like most other people, I dare say, and have no particular desire to be servants when they can be masters; and I have no doubt would gladly receive from the Theosophists their “rules for commanding the spirits, even as the Spiritualist publishes his “rules for the formation of spirit circles.” The Spiritualists could then try their hand' at commanding, and there ought to be no difficulty about this, because, as Dr. Wyld says, “the spirit of the medium does it,” and of course a man can do as he likes with his own. I do not know whether the Theosophists intend their society to be a secret one on the mutual admiration principle, or whether it is to be a money matter, but I shall give them credit for a desire to benefit others, just as the Spiritualist does; and if they decline to give the Spiritualists their “rules for commanding the spirits,” I think that Spiritualists may fairly consider their teaching as mere sophistry, that their ism is Theo-sophism, and its professors Theo-sophists.

Onlooker

Daily Newspaper Misrepresentations

Sir,—In reference to the paragraph from the Manchester Guardian, referred to by Mr. Charles Blackburn, and reproduced in your issue of the 8th inst., I have to state, on behalf of the Research Committee of the British National Association of Spiritualists, that there is no foundation whatever for any of the statements of the London correspondent of the above paper, with the exception only of that which notifies the appointment of the committee in question, a piece of news which is already nearly two years old.

Desmond G. Fitz-Gerald, M.S.Tel.E., Chairman of Committee.

The Inspiration of the Hebrew Prophets

Sir,—In your last number Mr. McKinney respectfully asks me for my authority for writing in The Spiritualist of 25th January, “No (true) Hebrew prophet was ever controlled by any departed spirit, and no evangelist ever spoke but as from his own God-enlightened spirit;” and he instances the narrative given in the first and nineteenth chapters of Revelations as an apparent refutation of my views. I turn to these chapters; but, instead of a refutation, I find a confirmation of my views. The very first begins—“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him” (John). Verse 10—“1 was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard a great voice.” It is true that an angel was sent to communicate the message, but is it not self-evident that consciously to receive a message from a visible angel is a J totally different transaction from being controlled by an invisible and unknown departed human spirit?

I am much obliged to Mr. McKinney for reminding me of chapter xviii. of 2nd Chronicles. It is a grand chapter, and most emphatically illustrates the difference between the false prophets and “the prophets of the Lord” A lying spirit is there described as volunteering to control the 400 false prophets—to be a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets;” who, being thus controlled, one and all urged the King of Israel to go up to battle. But the King of Judah, more wisely, asked, “Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides (these 400), that we may inquire of him?” Micaiah, the only prophet of the Lord, was sent for, and he predicted the death and destruction of the King of Israel and his host, if they went up to battle. The reward Micaiah received was to be “smitten on the face and shut up in prison, and fed on the bread and water of affliction.” The King of Israel, however, believing the 400 false prophets controlled by the evil spirit, went up to battle, and was slain, and bis people scattered over the hills, as predicted by Micaiah.

These 400 false prophets were mediums, under the control of one evil spirit. The one true prophet of the Lord spoke “as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance.” Throughout the Old Testament the language always is, “Thus saith the Lord,” or “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.” In not one single instance, so far as I can remember, was any prophet of the Lord controlled by a departed human spirit. On the contrary, the doctrine of the Bible is that the control of departed human spirits is necromancy; and this is emphatically condemned.

In reply to Mr. McKinney’s last question I would say that although necromancy was thus condemned in those early days, this does not, I <... continues on page 7-22 >

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  London Spiritualist, No. 290, March 15, 1878, p. 129