Jump to content

HPB-SB-4-39: Difference between revisions

HPB-SB-4-39 (view source)

Revision as of 22:49, 6 December 2023

7,061 bytes added ,  6 December 2023
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
Further, Mme. Blavatsky proves that materialists have no grounds to charge them, Spiritists, with “false pretences” and portray them as being “lost to reason.” As for their “false pretences,” she mentions one of their fellows, medium Slade, who was arrested at the complaint of Duke Lancaster for cheating him and taking ''$5'' for a sole ''séance'', and she asks whether he is more guilty of false pretences than Huxley himself, a {{Style S-HPB SB. HPB underlined|soulless}} person who wheedled not 5 but 5,000 dollars out of credulous New York residents for imparting them a very old hypothesis that man descended from an antediluvian four-toed horse?
Further, Mme. Blavatsky proves that materialists have no grounds to charge them, Spiritists, with “false pretences” and portray them as being “lost to reason.” As for their “false pretences,” she mentions one of their fellows, medium Slade, who was arrested at the complaint of Duke Lancaster for cheating him and taking ''$5'' for a sole ''séance'', and she asks whether he is more guilty of false pretences than Huxley himself, a {{Style S-HPB SB. HPB underlined|soulless}} person who wheedled not 5 but 5,000 dollars out of credulous New York residents for imparting them a very old hypothesis that man descended from an antediluvian four-toed horse?


“To be consistent he must show that while the horse was losing at each successive period a toe, man has in reversed order acquired an additional one at each new formation; and, unless we are shown the fossilized remains of man in a series of one-, two-, three-, and four-toed anthropoid apelike beings antecedent to the present perfected Homo, what does Huxley’s theory amount to? . . ”<ref>''Ditto'', p. 229.</ref> What grounds do we have to believe such bold assumptions, undemonstrated by anything but the lecturer's authority,
“To be consistent he must show that while the horse was losing at each successive period a toe, man has in reversed order acquired an additional one at each new formation; and, unless we are shown the fossilized remains of man in a series of one-, two-, three-, and four-toed anthropoid apelike beings antecedent to the present perfected Homo, what does Huxley’s theory amount to? . . ”<ref>''Ditto'', p. 229.</ref> What grounds do we have to believe such bold assumptions, undemonstrated by anything but the lecturer's authority, more than numerous eye-witnesses of spirit phenomena? Of course, hypothesis, whether of positive sciences or of the realm of psychology, is no false pretence; but an unsupported assertion. However, as soon as it crosses the line, as soon as it is offered as a fact or enforced as a faith, such a hypothesis and its proponents can be charged with false pretences, especially when people are charged money (and a great amount at that!) for it.


If, satisfied with the osseous fragments, rather incomplete and scattered, of various antediluvian creatures, materialists assume the right (without taking the risk of being branded as people lost to reason) to build a complicated theory of self-generation and origin of species passing it off as the scientific truth, if Cuvier,<ref>Jean Léopold Cuvier, known as Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), was a French naturalist and zoologist.</ref> grants rights of citizenship in natural history to the image of a whole mammoth based upon a small bone, a small osseous fragment of the antediluvian giant, why should Spiritualists be branded as those lost to reason (asks Mme. Blavatsky) when they base their conclusions on far more definite principles? In support of their theory of afterdeath life, they do not exhibit just small bones but, rather, entire hands, feet and even human bodies that appear during their séances in which they frequently recognize their departed relatives and acquaintances.


{{Style S-HPB SB. Editors note|Last paragraph is badly demaged. The rest of the column is lost. It could be that the following part of the article is published in the next issue of the newspaper. The rest of the article is restored from another resource.|center}}
Mme. Blavatsky closes her article by comparing the damage caused by the “system” of materialists, such as one propounded by the lecturer, with the evil presumably caused by Spiritists in promoting their highly (as she believes) moral theories of Spiritism. I need not say that she arrives at the conclusion that if the English found it possible to sentence medium Slade to three months in prison for extortion of five dollars, the Americans should have jailed materialist Huxley, at least, for three years – in proportion with the amount he was paid in New York for his false pretence!
 
Of all the sad things to be seen in this era of “shams”, our ardent Spiritist<ref>H. P. Blavatsky never regarded herself as a Spiritist. On the contrary, to oppose Spiritualism (which she viewed as necromancy) she put forward Theosophy as the true teaching about ethereal worlds and spiritual Nature.</ref> concludes, none is more deplorable – though its futility is often ludicrous – than the conspiracy of materialists to stamp out the multitude of facts corroborating the philosophy of Spiritists from history. What the ancient and modern authors narrate, “that can be used to bolster up the physical part of science, scientists accept and sometimes cooly appropriate without credit;”<ref>Op. cit., p. 232.</ref> while what they recognize as contrary to the order of nature, they “incontinently reject as mythical . . .” “They adopt the contrary course to Lord Verulam<ref>Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Albans, also known as Lord Verulam, (1561-1626) was an English philosopher, historian and statesman. Bacon has been called the father of empiricism and English materialism.</ref>, who, arguing on the properties of amulets and charms, remarks that, ‘we should not reject all this kind, because it is not known how far those contributing to superstition depend on natural causes.’ ”<ref>Op. cit., pp. 233.</ref> Clearly, humankind will never get to the truth as long as the freedom of thought and truthful exposition of scientific discoveries remains suppressed by preconceived opinions. More than that, “there can be no real enfranchisement of human thought, nor expansion of scientific discovery, until the existence of spirit is recognized, and the double evolution accepted as a fact. Until then, false theories will always find favour with those who, having forsaken ‘the God of their fathers,’ vainly strive to find substitutes in nucleated masses of matter . . .”
 
That's how the Russian Theosophist vigorously stood up for her brothers venturing to deal with the London scientist.




Line 41: Line 46:
}}
}}


{{Style S-Lost|...}}
...
{{Style P-No indent|more than numerous eye-witnesses of spirit phenomena? Of course, hypothesis, whether of positive sciences or of the realm of psychology, is no false pretence; but an unsupported assertion. However, as soon as it crosses the line, as soon as it is offered as a fact or enforced as a faith, such a hypothesis and its proponents can be charged with false pretences, especially when people are charged money (and a great amount at that!) for it.}}


If, satisfied with the osseous fragments, rather incomplete and scattered, of various antediluvian creatures, materialists assume the right (without taking the risk of being branded as people lost to reason) to build a complicated theory of self-generation and origin of species passing it off as the scientific truth, if {{From ETG|text=Cuvier|article=Georges Cuvier}}, grants rights of citizenship in natural history to the image of a whole mammoth based upon a small ''bone'', a small osseous fragment of the antediluvian giant, why should Spiritualists be branded as those lost to reason (asks Mme. Blavatsky) when they base their conclusions on far more definite principles? In support of their theory of afterdeath life, they do not exhibit just ''small bones'' but, rather, entire hands, feet and even human bodies that appear during their séances in which they frequently recognize their departed relatives and acquaintances.
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on |4-40}}


Mme. Blavatsky closes her article by comparing the damage caused by the “system” of materialists, such as one propounded by the lecturer, with the evil presumably caused by Spiritists in promoting their highly (as she believes) moral theories of Spiritism. I need not say that she arrives at the conclusion that if the English found it possible to sentence medium Slade to three months in prison for extortion of five dollars, the Americans should have jailed materialist Huxley, at least, for three years – in proportion with the amount he was paid in New York for his false pretence!
Of all the sad things to be seen in this era of “shams”, our ardent Spiritist concludes, none is more deplorable – though its futility is often ludicrous – than the conspiracy of materialists to stamp out the multitude of facts corroborating the philosophy of Spiritists from history. What the ancient and modern authors narrate, “that can be used to bolster up the physical part of science, scientists accept and sometimes cooly ''appropriate'' without credit;”<ref>''Op. cit.'', p. 232.</ref> while what they recognize as ''contrary to the order of nature'', ''they'' “incontinently reject as ''mythical ''. . .” “They adopt the contrary course to {{From ETG|text=Lord Verulam}}, who, arguing on the properties of amulets and charms, remarks that, ‘we should not reject all this kind, because it is not known how far those contributing to superstition depend on natural causes.’ ”<ref>''Op. cit.'', pp. 233.</ref> Clearly, humankind will never get to the truth as long as the freedom of thought and truthful exposition of scientific discoveries remains suppressed by preconceived opinions. More than that, “there can be no real enfranchisement of human thought, nor expansion of scientific discovery, until the existence of spirit is recognized, and the double evolution accepted as a fact. Until then, false theories will always find favour with those who, having forsaken ‘the God of their fathers,’ vainly strive to find substitutes in nucleated masses of matter . . .”
That's how the Russian Theosophist vigorously stood up for her brothers venturing to deal with the London scientist.




Line 64: Line 63:
Далҍе г-жа Блаватская доказываетъ, что напрасно матерьялисты укоряютъ ихъ, спиритовъ, въ безумiи и корыстолюбiи. Что касается до корыстолюбiя, то неужели ихъ товарищъ, медиумъ Слэдъ, недавно арестованный въ Лондонҍ по жалобе герцога Ланкастера за то что, взявъ ''пять'' долларовъ за сеансъ, яко-бы хотҍлъ обмануть его, более повиненъ в корысти нежели самъ Гексли?... {{Style S-HPB SB. HPB underlined|Бездушный}} выманившiй у легковҍрныхъ Нью-Iоркцев не 5 а 5000 дол. за сообщенiе {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|}} весьма стараго предположенiя о происхожденiи человҍка отъ четырехпалой, допотопной лошади.
Далҍе г-жа Блаватская доказываетъ, что напрасно матерьялисты укоряютъ ихъ, спиритовъ, въ безумiи и корыстолюбiи. Что касается до корыстолюбiя, то неужели ихъ товарищъ, медиумъ Слэдъ, недавно арестованный въ Лондонҍ по жалобе герцога Ланкастера за то что, взявъ ''пять'' долларовъ за сеансъ, яко-бы хотҍлъ обмануть его, более повиненъ в корысти нежели самъ Гексли?... {{Style S-HPB SB. HPB underlined|Бездушный}} выманившiй у легковҍрныхъ Нью-Iоркцев не 5 а 5000 дол. за сообщенiе {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|}} весьма стараго предположенiя о происхожденiи человҍка отъ четырехпалой, допотопной лошади.


Чтобы быть послҍдовательнымъ, Гекслей долженъ былъ-бы наглядно показать намъ, что въ то время {{Style S-HPB SB. HPB note|какъ}} эта {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|баснословная}} лошадь постепенно съ {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|каждымъ}} перiодомъ, теряла по пальцу; {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|человекъ}}, напротив, при каждой {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|новой трансформацiи}} прiобрҍталъ по {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|одному лишнему}}. Ибо, если намъ не по {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|}} ископаемыхъ остатковъ {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|человека}} различныхъ перiодовъ, въ {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|...хъ}} одно-палаго, двухъ-палаго {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|(...)}} состоянiй – состоянiй {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|несо... ...ыхъ}}, предшествовавшихъ {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|на... ...у}} ''совершенному'' его виду, – {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|...-же}} поведетъ насъ {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|многоум... ...iя}} Гексли?..» Какое {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|основа... ...мъ}} мы вҍрить такого рода, {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|}} ничҍмъ кромҍ авторитета {{Style S-HPB SB. Lost|}}
"Чтобы быть послҍдовательнымъ, Гекслей долженъ былъ-бы наглядно показать намъ, что въ то время {{Style S-HPB SB. HPB note|какъ}} эта {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|баснословная}} лошадь постепенно съ {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|каждымъ}} перiодомъ, теряла по пальцу; {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|человекъ}}, напротив, при каждой {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|новой трансформацiи}} прiобрҍталъ по {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|одному лишнему}}. Ибо, если намъ не по {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|покажутъ}} ископаемыхъ остатковъ {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|человека}} различныхъ перiодовъ, въ {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|степеняхъ}} одно-палаго, двухъ-палаго {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|((и т.д.))}} состоянiй – состоянiй {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|несовершенныхъ}}, предшествовавшихъ {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|настоящему}} ''совершенному'' его виду, – {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|къ чему-же}} поведетъ насъ {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|многоумная теорiя}} Гексли?..» Какое {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|основанiе имҍемъ}} мы вҍрить такого рода, {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|смҍлымъ,}} ничҍмъ кромҍ авторитета {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|лектора не подтверждаемымъ, предположенiямъ скорҍе, чҍмъ подтверждаемымъ свидҍтельствами весьма многочисленныхъ очевидцевъ явленiямъ духовъ?.. Конечно, всякая гипотеза, - принадлежи она наукамъ положительнымъ или области психологiи, не заслуживаетъ порицанiя, пока она остается предположенiемъ, догадкой… Но, какъ только она переходитъ эту черту, какъ только ее начинаютъ, подтверждать какъ фактъ и навязывать, какъ верованiе, – она и ея проповҍдники достойны всякого порицанiя и обвиненiй, въ особенности, если они требуютъ за распространенiе своихъ лживыхъ мнҍнiй платы (да еще такой значительной!)".}}
 
{{Style P-HPB SB. Restored}}
Если, довольствуясь ископаемыми останками, весьма неполными и разрозненными, различныхъ допотопныхъ тварей, матерiалисты имҍют право (не рискуя прослыть безумными) создать и выдавать за научную истину цҍлую сложную теорiю самозарожденiя и происхожденiя видовъ, если Кювье даетъ право гражданства въ естественной исторiи изображенiю цҍлаго маммонта, составленнаго имъ по единому ''позвонку'' – малому ископаемому останку допотопнаго великана, почему спиритуалисты (вопрошаетъ г-жа Блаватская) должны прослыть безумцами, основывая свои выводы на гораздо опредҍленнҍйших началахъ? Они основываютъ свою теорiю загробной жизни не на одномъ какомъ нибудь ''суставчикҍ'', а на появляющихся во время ихъ спиритскихъ сеансахъ рукахъ, ногахъ и даже полныхъ человҍческихъ тҍлахъ, въ которыхъ они часто узнаютъ своихъ умершихъ родственниковъ и знакомыхъ.
 
Въ заключенiе г-жа Блаватская сводя итоги вреду, принесенному «системой» матерiалистовъ, подобныхъ лектору, сравнительно съ вредомъ, предполагаемымъ ими въ проповҍдыванiи въ высшей степени (по ея мнҍнiю) нравственныхъ теорiй спиритизма. Нечего говорить, что она приходитъ къ заключенiю, что если медiума Слэда англичане нашли возможнымъ посадить на 3 мҍсяца въ тюрьму за вымогательство 5 дол., то имъ, американцамъ, слҍдовало засадить въ тюрьму матерiалиста Гекслея по меньшей мҍрҍ на 3 года, сообразно съ цифрой, обманомъ вырученной имъ в Нью-Iорке суммы!...
 
«Изъ всҍх грустныхъ фактовъ, представляемыхъ этимъ ''вҍкомъ обмановъ''», заканчиваетъ статью свою наша ярая спиритка, «нҍтъ ни одного болҍе горестнаго (хотя напрасныя старанiя ихъ часто доходятъ до смҍшнаго), какъ заговоръ матерiалистовъ исключить изъ науки и исторiи все многое множество фактовъ, подтверждающихъ философiю спиритуалистовъ. Все, что въ древнихъ и новҍйшихъ авторахъ поддерживаетъ ихъ собственный, матерiальный взглядъ на людей и природу, они согласно принимаютъ на ''вҍру'', часто даже не потрудившись провҍрить факты. То-же, что они признаютъ противнымъ законамъ природы, произвольно устраняется ими какъ миө. Они не желаютъ руководиться благоразумнымъ примҍром лорда Веруламъ, который, рассуждая о свойствахъ заклинанiй и талисмановъ, говоритъ, что наука не вправҍ отвергать даже ихъ, потому что еще не дознано, насколько эти суевҍрiя зависятъ отъ естественныхъ причинъ. Понятно, что человҍчество никогда не доберется до истины, если свобода мысли и правдивое изложенiе научныхъ открытiй будутъ стҍснены предвзятыми мнҍнiями. Скажемъ болҍе, человҍческое мышленiе никогда не сброситъ узъ, возложенныхъ на него близорукой рутиной, и не вырвется на свҍтъ и свободу, пока не будетъ признано бессмертiе нашего духа и двойное возрожденiе – и духа, и матерiи, не принято, какъ фактъ. До той поры ложныя теорiи всегда найдутъ доступъ к умам людей, “отрекшихся отъ Бога отцовъ своихъ” и тщетно прилагающихъ всҍ старанiя свои къ замҍнҍ его самостоятельной творческой силы, – пассивной дҍятельностью матерiи»…
 
Вотъ какъ энергично вступилась за своихъ собратiй русская өеозофка, не побоявшаяся помҍриться силами съ лондонскимъ ученымъ.
{{Close div}}
 
----
----




{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}}
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}}
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/16564...16573"