< Two Madame Blavatskys - Acquaintance of Madame H.P.Blavatsky with Western Countries (continued from page 7-70) >
eminent physician and surgeon, David E. Dudley, M.D., of Manilla, Philippine Islands, who spent some months in this city recently, and is now on his way to return to his Eastern home; Mr. Frank A. Hill, of Boston, Mass., who was in India some years since. Both these gentlemen corroborate many of her statements.
I have never heard of such a thing as a visit to a pagoda by a woman, and it is very doubtful if the Madame means to intimate that she was able to break through that ancient wall of priestly prejudice. She has said in my hearing several times that no woman that is known has ever penetrated to the interior—to the secret places of the pagoda. But aside from this, there are ways and means of getting esoteric information. Merely visiting in person the interior of a pagoda, or temple, or any other “secret” place, would afford little instruction. Every student and traveller knows there are brotherhoods in the East, who have access to all the knowledge, esoteric as well as exoteric, among whom even a woman may move as a student and inquirer. There is no doubt in my mind that Madame Blavatsky was made acquainted with many, if not quite all, of the rites, ceremonies, and instructions practised among the Druzes of Mount Lebanon in Syria, for she speaks to me of things that are only known by the favoured few who have been initiated.
The world may possibly profit by such people as “apostate priests,” if such persons happen to have peculiar information with the ability and courage to make it known. Mrs. Showers would not seriously condemn a priest for an honest change of position ; say, for instance, if one should become convinced of the claims and the truth of Spiritualism: he would be an apostate to the Church, and possibly a gain to Spiritualism. Such a case we had here in Toronto, Canada, a few months since, and the Rev. Mr. Marples (that was) is the Spiritualist lecturer, who is now a very popular man.
I hope you will not condemn me as an “apostate,” if the review of your correspondent’s remarks on the achievements of the Christian Church shall seem to be severe. She says, “Wherever Christianity has planted its standard, it has displaced something that was worse, never anything that was better.” My studies of the history of the Church have led me to the conclusion that Christianity owes its origin to the doctrines, faith, rites and ceremonies of such sects as the Mithra worshippers, the Gnostics, and the Therapeuts of the early ages of our era, say, before the time Eusebius made the Church history, which has not, and never had, a rival: its unique information is its peculiar property; and yet from it a Spiritualist may learn that what has been claimed as the peculiar property, through Divine revelation to the Church by its apostles, was known to the world for ages before the Church was in existence, and by the same familiar means by which we get such information nowadays, and which some churchmen denounce as “humbug,” “delusion,” and other phrases, indicating to such as have had personal experience in some peculiar matters, that the churchmen are simply inexperienced—we need not use a stronger term, nor question their integrity. Will Mrs. Showers undertake to doubt the personal experience of another lady on the ground of her want of knowledge of any similar experience in her own life? I think not.
It is the opinion of some students of history that Christianity did displace a better faith, or, at least, a better condition of society, when it drove out of society the broad toleration of the Greeks and Romans, and substituted the narrow intolerance of the Church. One result of this change was the decay of the fine arts throughout the Levant and Europe and Asia Minor generally, followed by the Dark Ages, when knowledge outside of the Church was next to impossible, and the works of the fine arts were only safe underground. Modern scepticism has done more to open the doors of knowledge to the great body of humanity than ever the Church did. Literature, the arts and sciences, were never more widely and earnestly studied since the days of the Academy of the Greeks.
Herodotus tells us a few things about “the feminine attendants round and about the temples” of the Aryan Greeks, which facts may be compared with similar facts concerning the Nautch girls of India, and the “devoted” maids of the ancient Hebrews, as, for instance, Jephthah’s daughter. The ancients made a much wider and more public use of certain symbols of the Creative Power than do our religious teachers. We do not condemn nor despise such emblems, for they may have a deeper significance than we can know at present.
One would infer from Mrs, Showers’ letter that the Madame did not enjoy an acquaintance among Christians here in New York. I know of several clergymen who have occasionally visited her, and one who is a D.D., and an author of some fame, whom I have met at her house two or three times. His visits seem to be on cordial terms; there was no antagonism nor bitterness apparent at the interviews.
On the subject of the “pools,” we have a living witness in this city in the person of the artist, Mr. Walter Paris, who was in the employ of the Government making sketches and drawings in India, and who says he visited one of the so-called pools. There were near it several fakirs, who slept, ate, and in fact lived where the crocodiles came among them at will, without attempt at mischief to the fakirs, although they were vicious towards strangers, as he found, to his imminent danger when he ventured too near the pool one day. Many other corroborations are ready, if wanted.
On the matter of Madame Blavatsky’s reticence as to her own experience, I may venture a word or two. She chooses to write under cover of the editorial “we,’’ for she is not a fame hunter, and preferred that impersonal manner of presenting her conclusions in matters relating to science and religion. In my visits to the Levant, her name has been frequently met with, in Tripolis, Beirut, Deir el Kamer, Damascus, Jerusalem, and Cairo. She was also well known to a merchant at Jiddah, who had a ring with her initials, which he said was a present to him from her. His servant, a camel-driver formerly, says he was dragoman and camelji to Madame Blavatsky from Jiddah to Mecca, I inquired of the Shereef of Mecca, but heard nothing of her there. She may have been incog, while there for prudential reasons. My visit was made as a Mohammedan divinity student, and secretary to Kamil Pasha, in whose company I journeyed.
The editor of the Builder of this city, Mr. William O’Grady, a native of Madras, India, visits Madame Blavatsky frequently, having known her in India.
Why repeat these evidences? One accepted testimony is sufficient—a thousand insufficient to the unwilling soul.
Perhaps the antagonism of Mrs. Showers is due to the apparent hostility of Madame Blavatsky to the present phase of Spiritualism, which makes so much use of spirits.
My experience has led me to the conclusion that far too much importance has been, and is, attributed to the supposed presence and action of “spirits.” Precisely similar phenomena can be witnessed almost anywhere in the East to those we see in Europe and America, and the actors believe the results proceed from what they understand to be magic. Now, I do not undertake to define between Spiritualism and magic. The result might be Spiritualism with the spirits left out, and some one would quote the saying about the play of Hamlet with the prince left out.
But such is my position. I have so many times seen phenomena here, in Egypt, Syria, in the Greek islands, and elsewhere in the Levant, that it is safe to say I recognise similar appearances when present.
In this city and London, the “spirits” are credited with the work; in the Levant the credit is given to the magic arts. And magic, as all its Eastern adepts have told me, is the discriminating exercise of the educated human Will.
84, Bond-street, New York, March 18th, 1878.
[Readers on this side of the Atlantic are requested not to take further part in this controversy, except to make brief statements of facts, or there will be no end to it. Those on the other side have now a right to be heard.—Ed]
Experiment Versus Over-Speculation
Sir,—I am sure the general reader will accord to you praise for the fair and catholic spirit you show in giving all persons a fair hearing in your paper. Of late we have had Theosophy pretty well exhibited, and probably we now know as much about that subject as its adherents can tell us, or care to tell us. Whether that will help any in furthering psychological inquiry and experiment remains to be seen. At any rate I sincerely hope that the rather peppery correspondence which has been printed upon it is about to subside in favour of something dealing more obviously with facts. I write this with all deference to the learned in ancient occult lore, and I imagine there must be many who think with me.
I have been greatly struck with the advance made recently in connection with materialisations, which, if reports be accurate, gives us good hope that at no distant date the dark cabinet may be dispensed with, and the phenomena closely watched and studied. May I be permitted to make a remark here, expressive of a little disappointment with the results of seances held at the rooms of the British National Association of Spiritualists. Unless memory fails me, I think no materialisation of any consequence has yet taken place before the seance committee. How is this to be accounted for? Favourable conditions are of course essential, and these it may not always be possible to command at a given time; but there can be little doubt that if a materialisation without a cabinet, such as has recently been reported, could be repeated before the committee, it would not fail to give a great impetus to psychological interest and inquiry, because of the extended corroboration of the fact. One such report would be worth a good deal of occult or metaphysical reading (I mean no discourtesy), if it were for no other reason than that it related to a fact which could be seen, heard, and handled.
Edinburgh.
The Alleged Spirit of Nana Sahib
Sir,—In the account of a seance held at Naples, at which the spirit of Nana Sahib controlled, as printed in this week’s Spiritualist, “the well at Lucknow” is mentioned. The Nana, or the medium, or Signor Damiani has made a mistake. It ought to be the well at Cawnpore.
Indian Mysticisms
Sir,—In reference to an article in The Spiritualist of 22nd instant, taken from the Oriental Annual, I have had thirteen years’ experience in India and Ceylon, and have seen similar feats; therefore, I can bear witness to their truth. When I was stationed at Ghazipore, on the banks of the Ganges, in 1857, some native jugglers came into the Government opium godowns, when about 150 of us were doing duty. We formed a circle around them in the open parade, at or about midday, in the month of December. The jugglers had some round stones, which we' handled, and, having satisfied ourselves they were stones, we placed them on the ground, a yard from the natives, who muttered some words, and touched the stones with a stick. The stones then disappeared, or were transformed into little living snakes, about a foot and a half long each. They wriggled and hissed, causing the circle of about twenty men to widen. The jugglers touched the little live snakes again with their sticks or wands, and called on Ram-Ram, The snakes then turned again into stones. I immediately took up one of these snakes, or stones, and smashed it on a flag-stone brought for the purpose. It was simply a stone. Where the snakes went to, or <... continues on page 7-72 >
Editor's notes
- ↑ image by unknown author
- ↑ Experiment Versus Over-Speculation by unknown author (signed as Patience), London Spiritualist, No. 293, April 5, 1878, p. 167
- ↑ The Alleged Spirit of Nana Sahib by unknown author (signed as One who was sent to the Rescue), London Spiritualist, No. 293, April 5, 1878, p. 167
- ↑ Indian Mysticisms by Cain, J., London Spiritualist, No. 293, April 5, 1878, p. 167
Sources
London Spiritualist, No. 293, April 5, 1878, p. 167