 |
vol. title: Vol Four of The Theosophical Society of The Arya Samaj of Arya-wart vol. period: Sept 1878 – Sept 1879 pages in vol.: 350 |
… to observe the lengths and depths to which western credulity can go, than to gather corroboration of the narratives contained in their own sacred literature.” On our part we cannot blame our Bombay brethren for, after all this table talk, it is fairly evident that at the best our theosophical pilgrims are mere votaries of the ‘spiritualistic’ delusion which has been doing so much mischief among idle or ill-regulated minds in the west, principally in America. We ourselves have had some experience of the pseudo-religious nonsense talked by the adherents of so-called spiritualism, and we recognize in the thousands of proposed members of this theosophical society merely some of the many thousands of deluded people who put their faith in professors of spiritualism and the female co-adjutors commonly known as ‘mediums.’ This is not the first time we have heard of the necessity of importing into Europe the practices of Indian ascetics in order to penetrate behind the veil of nature. In all countries we find that mystics and enthusiasts desirous of thaumaturgic illusions have used fasting and concentration of thought as means of attaining that abstraction which enables them to become dupes of their imagination. There is an old trick of placing a cock on a table, holding its beak down and drawing a chalk line from it along the table; if this be properly done, the cock, when let go, does not move, but remains as if fixed by the beak to the table. From the old trick to the abstraction attained by the ascetic, who holds his breath and fixes his entire thought on the tip of his nose, there is but a step. All these phenomena are thoroughly explained in Carpenter’s work on Mental Physiology, and it is admitted by all intelligent people, not themselves under the delusion, that these spiritualistic phenomena, whether performed by the professors of spiritualism in America or by the ascetic in India, are unhealthy mental phenomena, the production of which is highly mischievous to individuals and society. Their production has been taken up by a class of people; the greater part of whom are simple victims of delusion and mysticism, imposed on by clever sleight of hand performers. Mr. Huxley, when reproached with condemning these performances, reminded the dupes that the so-called spiritual phenomena were never witnessed except by people endowed with faith in them, and that when he had endeavoured to observe them, the ‘spirits’ were always unwilling. He added that he had not lost much, to judge from the published utterances of the spirits, for compared to them “the cackling of curates and old women in a cathedral town” was sensible conversation.
We give Colonel Olcott and his companions every credit for good faith in the phenomena of “occult science,” but we cannot resist the inference that the educated Hindus and Parsis of Bombay who “made merry over our testimony to the truth of the primitive philosophies” shewed a very sound instinct as to the value of the Theosophy preached to them. They evidently saw that the American pilgrims had in their blind enthusiasm, picked up as treasures the rubbish which has been discarded from Hinduism in the ordinary course of intellectual progress. The new faith if we can dignify by this name the teachings of Colonel Olcott and Helena P. Blavatsky is a nebulous kind of deism; its ‘intellectual portion,’ such as it is, appears to lead direct to spiritualistic dupery (for there is a section of the society devoted to secret experiments in occult science and its organisation is an imitation of the masonic system) which has, we know, great attraction for many people. As to the study of Aryan lore so pompously put forth as the object of the migration of the chief Theosophists to India, we may smile, along with our brethren in Bombay, at the immigrants “more Hindoocized than most of the Hindus born on the soil.” We wish them every success in their combined efforts to restore the greatness of India and to introduce the cheap and simple machines of Yankeeland into their adopted country. At the same time we regret that their Philosophy does not ‘figure’ very well; the machines will we hope be more successful.
The writer of a letter in the Standard on the subject of the Countess Blavatsky, which was quoted in this paper yesterday, is of opinion that our remarks, unintentionally of course, convey a wholly wrong impression of the subject of his letter. He says:—Seeing the light in which the story about Mdme. Blavatsky, myself, and the glove must of course appear to the public, I wrote to say, as I now repeat, that I was no party to the publication of it, which was also not desired by Mdme. Blavatsky; and that if any one has put forward the circumstances as presentable evidence, I certainly am not that person. Not a word of this disclaimer is reproduced in your Note, though I am represented as giving evidence of my own belief. This, it is true, I did not shrink from doing, and could not avoid doing without letting it be supposed that I shared the suspicions certain to be suggested against the integrity of two ladies of the highest honour and character, who are also my personal friends. What may be “the opinion of the Indian papers” I do not know; but I do know that to speak of “a question of terms” in connection with Mdme. Blavatsky, or to insinuate that she has any mercenary motive in anything she may do—especially in the exercise of her well-attested powers—is to speak in equal ignorance of her character, position, circumstances, and antecedents. It is because the English public are ignorant of these that I deprecated publication of facts which depend in any degree for their credibility on such assumptions. The second object of my letter to the Standard was to explain that my father, “the Liberal M.P.” to whom allusion had been made, was no party to the experiment in question, and has no faith or interest in the subjects which have now engaged my own attention for some years. I am quite willing to encounter any amount of ridicule myself for what I know to be truth; and, being a perfectly obscure person, it is not likely to do me much harm. But I desire not to expose any one connected with me to annoyance or misconstruction on my account.
A Letter to a Visitor
Sir,—At the risk of again bringing before the notice of Spiritualists a personal matter, I beg of you to publish the enclosed letter received from a member of Council of the British National Association of Spiritualists, as I am ignorant how far he was authorised by the Council to write thus to an occasional caller at the rooms of the British National Association of Spiritualists.
My acquaintanceship with Mr. Bennett was of the slightest and most official character; and so far as I remember, this was the first note I ever received from him.
As a matter of fact, I have not, as was my custom, frequently visited the rooms during the last two months, nor was it my intention to do so, for reasons which are, I trust, intelligible to my friends. I can only call to remembrance two occasions on which I have stepped inside the rooms of the British National Association of Spiritualists since the date I have given. But on those occasions the traditional courtesy was extended to me by the officials in charge; and I hope that other inquirers will continue to receive the same.—Yours truly,
The Mansion, Richmond-hill, near London, April 28th, 1879.
Dear Sir,—There is a feeling among some of the members of the B.N.A.S., and it is shared by more than a few, that the influence of your visits to the reading-room is to a certain extent prejudicial to the interests of the Association. I should feel very sorry for you to feel personally annoyed by any expression of the kind; and it is with the hope of avoiding this that I venture to send you a few lines, which I hope you will kindly accept in the spirit in which they are intended.—I am, yours faithfully,
Dr. Carter Blake.
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 352, May 23, 1879, p. 250