Changes

{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |Two Critics of Theosophy|4-233}}

{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |Two Critics of Theosophy|4-233}}

...

{{Style P-No indent|longer exists. Madame Blavatsky has defined the “astral man” in a passage too long for quotation ''(Spiritualist, ''February 8th), and to that I must refer those who would like to estimate the care which “Scrutator” and “M.A., Cantab,” have taken to inform themselves of the opinions which they make haste to denounce. Madame Blavatsky had in that letter to deal with the blunder that the astral soul is the spirit. I fear she will despair of English intelligence when she finds that the next absurdity ascribed to her is the opposite blunder, that the soul has no spirit at all! In ''The Spiritualist ''of February 8th, Colonel Olcott says, “the adept’s astral spirit” (soul) “works with, through, and in perfect accord with either pure disembodied spirits or his own immortal spirit.” According to his critics, Colonel Olcott ought to have denied to the adept the possession of any astral spirit or soul at all, since the adept has not lost his immortal spirit. But I could multiply extracts indefinitely, which ought to have saved these gentlemen from the possibility of misconstruing Colonel Olcott as they have done. I have only dwelt so long on the subject because “Scrutator” “calls particular attention” to it, and accuses Colonel Olcott of “a very slanderous imputation.” It remains to be seen whether carelessness in bringing the charge is atoned for by promptitude in acknowledging its groundlessness. It is certainly not a light charge, as any one will admit who knows some good, worthy, and even very noble and high-minded persons, I could name, who are, or have been, physical mediums. It is only necessary to expose the mistake which identifies the “astral man” with the “elementary,” to show the utter inapplicability of all the reasoning by which “Scrutator” attempts to involve me in an inconsistency with Colonel Olcott for suggesting that the ''spiritless ''being or elementary, in or out of the flesh, is no longer “man” according to the Theosophic definition of man as a trinity. But I must notice another “spoke in our wheel,” which “M.A., Cantab,” thinks he has detected in my quotation (March 10th, 1876) from “a very learned occultist.” Because that writer, in describing the processes of evolution in the lower forms, speaks of all matter as “imbued with that vital principle called spirit,” and says that “each grain of sand, equally with each minutest atom of the human body, has its inherent latent spark of the Divine light,” this, says “M.A., Cantab,” is inconsistent with the loss of the spirit by the astral body, which is itself, at least, matter. If this were so, if the Divine spirit of man were identical with the principle of life, or with the latent spark of Divine light in the grain of sand, identical, that is, not only as affirming their common source, but as negating their differentiation, then is evolution alike needless and impossible. But this same writer I quoted says further on—“When this double evolution has reached a certain point, it is possible for the third principle to come into union, ''that is, the immortal spirit which makes of man a triad,” ''But if this ascent was not maintained, and this third principle had departed from the form no longer fitted for it, the form would return to the condition it was in before the union, and in its gradual dissolution (which means not, of course, annihilation, but dispersion of its elements, as in the case of the physical body) would be destroyed ''as a form, ''its component particles recommencing the process of evolution from the beginning. The “man” in such case is rightly said to be annihilated, for his individual consciousness depends, not on the dispersed elements, but on their combination into an organism through which consciousness can exist and manifest. So much for this “flat contradiction” between this writer and our New York friends.}}

 

 

 

 

 

Temple, February 24th, 1878.