Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
17,091
edits
HPB-SB-13-77: Difference between revisions
m
Упрощено оформление заголовка, восстановлен абзацный отступ и исправлена привязка продолжения
(Актуализировано оформление по правилам альбомов) |
m (Упрощено оформление заголовка, восстановлен абзацный отступ и исправлена привязка продолжения) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| page = 77 | | page = 77 | ||
| image = SB-13-077.jpg | | image = SB-13-077.jpg | ||
| notes = | | notes = | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| author = | | author = | ||
| author signed = M.A. (Oxon.) | | author signed = M.A. (Oxon.) | ||
| title = Notes by the Way | | title = Notes by the Way. | ||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| Line 27: | Line 26: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Style P- | {{Style P-Align center|<big>'''Contributed by “M.A. (Oxon.)”'''</big>}} | ||
The ''Journal of Science'' shews a regrettable tendency to fasten on Spiritualists generally an aggressive disposition against biological science, chiefly in consequence of opinions expressed by Mr. Newton Crosland and Dr. Anna Kingsford. I ventured before (see No. 64) to protest against a whole body of persons, who have little or nothing in common beyond this one belief in man’s survival after death, and the possibility of communicating between the world of matter and the world of Spirit, being implicated in the private opinions of any one of its members. Spiritualists have an unquestionable tendency to espouse what a scoffing world calls “crazes.” There is in them a certain fondness for the new and illicit, as against the orthodox and established order of things: and there is too what an American critic called “a certain ''unripeness'' of thought,” a jumping to conclusions, a gathering in of surface impressions and explanations, which leads to bewildering results. | |||
I am fully possessed with a belief in that which gives Spiritualism its name and place in modern thought. I am a Spiritualist ''ex animo''. Am I therefore committed to all the views and opinions of my co-believers? Then am I a vegetarian, unless indeed the link between the animal and vegetable world made clear by science causes me to extend to the tender cabbage the sympathy that I feel for the sportive lamb, and refuse to kill either. I drink no wine, nor any strong drink, nor stimulating tea nor coffee, but cheer myself with the “largely diluted sewage” supplied to me by the London waterworks. I eschew narcotics in all their seductive forms. I probably wear some strange form of raiment, being obviously “hygienic” in my proclivities; and, moreover being, as an anti-vivisectionist, averse to the slaughter of animals on any pretence whatever. I am sound on the great vaccination virus question, and refuse to poison or be poisoned. I am strong on the rights of women, and expansive on the rights of man, the chief of them being his inalienable and sacred right to do what he pleases without taking the consequences. When I am sick I am magnetically healed, or perchance am homœopathically pilled, but under no circumstances am I allopathically dosed, it being a principle of mine never to use drugs whose action can be traced in the system. My views on the marriage question I had rather not reveal: an unenlightened and stiff-necked generation is not prepared for them. I draw a vail over other specialities, and only beg that, in the name of logic, and for pity’s sake, our friendly critic will not again involve us all in one common condemnation. | I am fully possessed with a belief in that which gives Spiritualism its name and place in modern thought. I am a Spiritualist ''ex animo''. Am I therefore committed to all the views and opinions of my co-believers? Then am I a vegetarian, unless indeed the link between the animal and vegetable world made clear by science causes me to extend to the tender cabbage the sympathy that I feel for the sportive lamb, and refuse to kill either. I drink no wine, nor any strong drink, nor stimulating tea nor coffee, but cheer myself with the “largely diluted sewage” supplied to me by the London waterworks. I eschew narcotics in all their seductive forms. I probably wear some strange form of raiment, being obviously “hygienic” in my proclivities; and, moreover being, as an anti-vivisectionist, averse to the slaughter of animals on any pretence whatever. I am sound on the great vaccination virus question, and refuse to poison or be poisoned. I am strong on the rights of women, and expansive on the rights of man, the chief of them being his inalienable and sacred right to do what he pleases without taking the consequences. When I am sick I am magnetically healed, or perchance am homœopathically pilled, but under no circumstances am I allopathically dosed, it being a principle of mine never to use drugs whose action can be traced in the system. My views on the marriage question I had rather not reveal: an unenlightened and stiff-necked generation is not prepared for them. I draw a vail over other specialities, and only beg that, in the name of logic, and for pity’s sake, our friendly critic will not again involve us all in one common condemnation. | ||
| Line 43: | Line 40: | ||
The Occultist therefore contends as a logical sequence from these considerations, that the adepts alone can possess real knowledge, and that Spiritualists are “mistaken when they think themselves in contact with the Spirits of departed friends, or with such benevolent beings of another sphere” as descend to earth for purposes of instruction. Thus contending, it is incumbent on him, however, to explain every incident of Spiritualism, and to shew how its various phenomena are explicable on other than Spiritualistic hypotheses. This can be done (it is alleged), and accordingly a recital is given of a case of automatic writing through the hand of a Russian lady, in which facts were truly given, mixed with theological beliefs held by the medium; but the communicating Spirit, believed to be dead, was alive in the body all the time. The case reads like one of established Spirit-identity, and might pass as such to a superficial observer. The inference is drawn that one such case vitiates the Spiritualist argument, and shews that any number of such cases do not establish the Spiritualist contention. | The Occultist therefore contends as a logical sequence from these considerations, that the adepts alone can possess real knowledge, and that Spiritualists are “mistaken when they think themselves in contact with the Spirits of departed friends, or with such benevolent beings of another sphere” as descend to earth for purposes of instruction. Thus contending, it is incumbent on him, however, to explain every incident of Spiritualism, and to shew how its various phenomena are explicable on other than Spiritualistic hypotheses. This can be done (it is alleged), and accordingly a recital is given of a case of automatic writing through the hand of a Russian lady, in which facts were truly given, mixed with theological beliefs held by the medium; but the communicating Spirit, believed to be dead, was alive in the body all the time. The case reads like one of established Spirit-identity, and might pass as such to a superficial observer. The inference is drawn that one such case vitiates the Spiritualist argument, and shews that any number of such cases do not establish the Spiritualist contention. | ||
What, then, is the Occultist’s explanation? It is this. The fifth principle, the ''anima'', or physical soul of the medium, was the active agent, as the soul of the clairvoyant is during the sleep of the body. She revived early memories, reproduced in the Astral Light, and mixed them up with fanciful bits of religious teaching, giving an account of her relative in Heaven, in company with the Virgin Mary, whereas she was still a dweller on this earth. This is, it is alleged, the case ninety-nine times out of a hundred: though the Spiritualist is too strongly prepossessed to see and own it. If he be a medium he is “fascinated by | What, then, is the Occultist’s explanation? It is this. The fifth principle, the ''anima'', or physical soul of the medium, was the active agent, as the soul of the clairvoyant is during the sleep of the body. She revived early memories, reproduced in the Astral Light, and mixed them up with fanciful bits of religious teaching, giving an account of her relative in Heaven, in company with the Virgin Mary, whereas she was still a dweller on this earth. This is, it is alleged, the case ninety-nine times out of a hundred: though the Spiritualist is too strongly prepossessed to see and own it. If he be a medium he is “fascinated by {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|13-78}} | ||
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|13-78}} | |||
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||